Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Australia) Order, 1968, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Brunei) Order, 1968, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Fiji) Order, 1968, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Faroe Islands)

Order, 1968, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony) Order, 1968, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

AIRDRIE COURT HOUSE COMMISSIONERS (DISSOLUTION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

PETITIONS

Wigg v. The Spectator Limited

Mr. Hamling: I beg to present the Petition of John Montgomerie of 1 Rose-bery Road, Cheam in the London Borough of Sutton, a partner in the firm of Goodman, Derrick and Company, Solicitors, which shows that, in the action Wigg v. The Spectator Limited, it may be material to present evidence touching statements made in the course of debates in this House. The Petition continues:
Wherefore your Petitioner prays that the leave of your Honourable House should be given to the following persons, namely, the right hon. Hugh Charles Patrick Joseph Fraser, Member of Parliament for the Stafford and Stone Division of Staffordshire, Sir Fitzroy Hew Maclean. Baronet, Member of Parliament for the Bute and North Ayrshire Division of Ayrshire and Bute, the right hon. Emmanuel Shinwell, Member of Parliament for the Easington Division of Durham, Alistair Brian Clarke Harrison, Member of Parliament for the Malden Division of Essex, Wilfred Sendall, Political Correspondent, to give evidence of or touching any statements made in the course of any Debates which have taken place in your Honourable House and of


any matters arising out of or connected with the subject matter of the said statements or any of them so far as the same may be held by the High Court of Justice to be relevant to and admissible in the said action.
And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
I beg to move, "That leave be given to the said Members and the said other person to attend and give evidence accordingly."

Question put and agreed to

Acton (New Writ)

Mr. Lubbock: I beg leave to present a Petition on behalf of 2,036 of the electors of the constituency of Acton, whose signatures were collected during five hours on Saturday. The Petition shows:
That since the tenth day of October 1967 the electors of Acton have been unrepresented in your Honourable House of Commons and no steps have been taken to cause an election of a new Member to be held for the said constituency of Acton and that the electors of the said constituency have thereby been and are still disfranchised.
Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that the Speaker of your Honourable House be moved to issue his warrant for a new writ to fill the vacancy in the said constituency of Acton.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Polaris Warheads

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will redefine the clasification of information about Polaris warheads.

The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. Roy Mason): No, Sir.

Mr. Marten: If the multiple warhead is now fitted on to our Polaris, is it not true that the more we talk about it in terms of a deterrent, the better; or is it true that the Government agree with the

Lord President of the Council that Britain's role is to be a spokesman for the non-nuclear powers? Could we have an answer to both those questions?

Mr. Mason: I am sorry to inform the hon. Gentleman that it would not be right for me to talk about what is a highly cassified matter. Classification standards were agreed with the Americans in the 1958 Exchange Agreement. They still stand. They have worked amicably, and I do not see any reason to lower them.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: How far does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that the use of nuclear weapons was sheer adjectival lunacy?

Mr. Mason: I agree precisely with what he said yesterday and with his reiteration of what he said in Washington.

Cape Route (Maritime Security)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the allocation of responsibility for the maritime security of the Cape route between the British, South African, and other allied forces.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): Under the Simonstown Agreement, Her Majesty's Government and the South African Government share responsibilities for maritime security in the South Africa area.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy told us on 8th February of increased responsibility given by Her Majesty's Government to the South African Navy, is it not arrant hypocrisy to maintain the ban on the sale of the materials needed by the South Africans to discharge that responsibility? Will the Government help the trade mission now arriving in South Africa by ending the ban, which is largely disregarded by our Allies?

Mr. Healey: The answer to both parts of that supplementary questions is no, Sir.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman denying that his hon. Friend stated that additional responsibility has been


allocated by this country to South Africa for the defence of the sea routes?

Mr. Healey: No. That was the prothesis of the apothesis of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Sir C. Osborne: Can the Minister give a reasonable reason for our wanting to use the Simonstown base if we are not prepared to help defend it? Two weeks ago I was round the base myself and the authorities there were alarmed at the foolishness of refusing to sell them arms. Will he try to alter the policy?

Mr. Healey: Her Majesty's Government's policies were announced and debated fully in this House and there was a substantial majority in favour of them.

Young Servicemen (Recruitment)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now prepared to report on the results of the inquiry into the recruitment of young Servicemen.

Mr. Tinn: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expect to announce a decision on the recommendations of the Committee on The Age of Majority that boys who join the Armed Forces shall be given periodical opportunities to obtain discharge before the age of 30 years.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on his policy with regard to reducing the period of service of Servicemen who were recruited under the age of 18 years and wish to leave the Armed Forces.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has now completed his consideration of the Latey Report; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): I would refer the hon. Members concerned to the statement I made in the House on 5th February, 1968.—[Vol. 758, c. 43-50.]

Mr. Davidson: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this Question was tabled before the statement was made. May I ask the Minister when the first and third of the Latey Committee's recom-

mendations will be implemented, the levels of which he accepted in his statement on 5th February?

Mr. Reynolds: As regard the period of six months for a youngster to make up his mind whether he wants to stay; virtually straightaway. Concerning raising the age to 18 for parental consent: as I said, if and when the general age of legal majority is reduced to 18.

Mr. Tinn: Is the Minister aware that, while we welcome some improvement, many of us are still dissatisfied that the law protects young people against unwise hire-purchase commitments but allows them to sign away a substantial part of their lives? Would it not have been more courteous for his Department to inform hon. Members who had tabled Questions for answer today that he intended to make his statement last week?

Mr. Reynolds: I informed all Members who have been in touch with me. I regret not informing the hon. Gentleman who had a Question down for today. I gave a fairly full statement on 5th February. I have nothing to add to that. As I have said before, I am not prepared to argue on the moral question involved, because I accept that the argument against me is very strong indeed.

Servicemen (Discharge)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of the proposed manpower cuts for the Armed Services, he will give immediate and special consideration to those Servicemen who have persistently applied for discharge by purchase or on compassionate grounds.

Mr. Reynolds: We always give such consideration to applications for compassionate discharge. However, we have to consider applications for discharge by purchase in the light of our current manpower needs.

Mr. Davidson: May I ask the Minister what are his general intentions about future recruiting policy for the Armed Services?

Mr. Reynolds: This is a slightly different question, but our intentions are to carry on recruiting, if we can, the numbers required to maintain the various


units in all three Services up to the strength laid down for the appropriate years in the announcements of Government policy which have been made.

Mr. Paget: In existing circumstances would my hon. Friend still consider it justifiable to refuse purchase of discharge to an aircraftman who had by self-education won himself a place in a university?

Mr. Reynolds: If he has not served the minimum number of years provided for under the Regulations currently applied to the Air Force, yes. In circumstances above that number of years, we will want to look at each case individually.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister not aware that the National Council for Civil Liberties has sent his office many examples of Servicemen being retained when they have no special qualifications which are of use to the particular service? Why does he persist in refusing to give these people discharges?

Mr. Reynolds: I cannot accept the part about no special qualifications. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the National Council for Civil Liberties has sent me details of a little over a hundred cases which they have collected covering a 10-year period. I have to compare these with something in excess of 125,000 boy entrants who are at present serving in Her Majesty's Forces.

Europe (British Forces)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent British forces on the continent of Europe will be increased consequent on the proposed withdrawal from east of Suez.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Member will not expect me to prejudge the outcome of the work now being undertaken to establish the detailed implications of the recent decisions.

Mr. Blaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in the current negotiations with the Germans on offset costs the Government will not this time threaten to withdraw from the Continent those forces whose costs are not offset?

Mr. Healey: There is no question of a threat in this particular case.

Mr. Dickens: Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, as a consequence of withdrawal from east of Suez, there will be no consequential in-crease in the size of the British Army of the Rhine?

Mr. Healey: I am not prepared to give any assurances on the shape and deployment of our forces after withdrawal from the Far East is complete. I hope to make a statement on this matter in some detail later in the year.

Mr. Ramsden: Is not the Government's policy in danger of becoming rather ambivalent? On the one hand they are on record as saying that they will only keep the same levels in Germany if the costs are met, and, on the other, as saying that Europe is to be the main future stance of our forces. Is it not time that the Government made the position clear?

Mr. Healey: No. Any inconsistency such as the hon. Gentleman appears to find would depend on a failure to resolve the offset agreement satisfactorily. I do not anticipate such a failure.

Mr. Shinwell: Would my right hon. Friend regard an increase in our forces on the Rhine as related to the possibility of aggression by the Soviet Union or rather because it is related to the proposed British entry into the Common Market?

Mr. Healey: I can assure my right hon. Friend that if any such decision were taken—I do not for a moment suggest that it would be taken—it would not be related to the second possibility that he has mentioned.

Defence Expenditure

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Defence by what amount defence expenditure in 1968–69 including cancellation and transitional charges, will now exceed that incurred in 1967–68.

Mr. Healey: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the Defence Estimates for 1968–69, which will be published next week.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Government's own White Paper on public expenditure shows that before these cuts


were decided there would have been a reduction in defence expenditure of £51 million next year? Does his answer mean that there may be no such reduction?

Mr. Healey: We made it clear during the last debate that, as a result of the impact of cancellation charges following the, decisions taken in the recent expenditure review, we cannot guarantee that there will not be some increase in next year's estimates.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Why should it take four years to reduce arms expenditure when equally long-term expenditure for school and road building can be made in the twinkling of an eye?

Mr. Healey: First, I am not aware of any expenditure being cut in any Department in a twinkling of an eye. What I would point out to my hon. Friend is that the defence expenditure of most other Governments in Europe—particularly the Soviet Government—has been steadily increasing over the last four years and we have done well to hold ours where it was.

Mr. Powell: Is it not the result of the. Government's decision that Government expenditure will be increased above what it would have been in the very period when it is most crucial, on the Government's own showing, to restrain it?

Mr. Healey: This may be the case, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made clear repeatedly in recent weeks, the problem is not only to reduce expenditure during the current year, but over the next four or five years. The reduction in defence expenditure over the longer period will contribute substantially to the solution of our economic problems.

Tactical Strike and Reconnaissance Aircraft

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how the Royal Air Force needs for a tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft are to be met when the Canberra is phased out.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to provide aircraft to replace those F111K aircraft that were destined for an operational role in a European theatre of war.

Mr. Healey: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 2nd February to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth).—[Vol. 757, c. 440]

Mr. Onslow: Would it not be more straightforward for the Minister to admit that the R.A.F. will no longer be able to meet these needs? Does he not see that his rectitude and honour might be more highly valued in the country if he were to resign?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman was no doubt present during the debate when we discussed both questions to which he has referred. He will be aware that the Government had a larger majority on that occasion than on many recent occasions.

Mr. Ramsden: The right hon. Gentleman, on 25th January, said:
Our air forces will certainly require some reshaping to make up for the loss" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 629.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have quotations in a Question.

Mr. Ramsden: If I may comment on what was said—

Mr. Speaker: Would the right hon. Gentleman put his question?

Mr. Ramsden: What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that our air forces would require some reshaping to make up for the loss of the F111?

Mr. Healey: As I made clear in the debate to which I have just referred, the loss of the capability for deep strike and reconnaissance during the 'seventies will require some adjustment in the shaping of our forces in various respects; but I am not prepared at this moment to say precisely how those forces will be reshaped. It may well be that the net saving, which might otherwise have been achieved by the cancellation of the F111, will be somewhat reduced by the consequential reshaping of the Air Force.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the V-bombers will have to remain in service as a result of the reshaping?

Mr. Healey: I do not believe that the reshaping of the air Force will require the V-bombers to remain longer in service than would otherwise have been the case.

Royal Air Force (Deployment)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what Royal Air Force element will be included in the general capability for deployment outside Europe after 1971.

Healey: The deployment outside Europe of particular elements of the Royal Air Force will depend on the circumstances at the time.

Mr. Onslow: What bases does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be available east of Ascension Island?

Mr. Healey: We do not plan to have any bases in the technical sense in which that word has been used in defence debates in the House of Commons for the last 20 years, but we expect to have staging posts which will enable the Air Force to enjoy a variety of route options if it is required to serve in the Far East.

Mr. Dalyell: What staging posts are we likely to have?

Mr. Healey: I am afraid that my hon. Friend must await the White Paper later in the year for an answer to that question.

Territorial Army

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations with the Territorial Army Council take place before changes are made in the Territorial Army.

Mr. Reynolds: It depends on the changes. Her Majesty's Government determine the policy for the Army Reserves, that is, their role, size and shape, but consult the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations on the method of implementing that policy.

Mr. Allason: Surely it requires some consultation with the Council of the Territorial Army Association if it is expected to operate with a large slice of the Territorial Army cut out. Is not this a shabby way to treat the T.A. Council? How can the Minister possibly expect future co-operation when it has been treated like this?

Mr. Reynolds: If the hon. Gentleman reads my Answer he will see. I main-

tain it is the job of the Government to determine general policy, role, size and shape. As regards the administration of the policy, my right hon. Friend and I are consulting the Council of Territorial Army Associations. I do not take the rather cynical view which the hon. Gentleman appears to take about its reaction to the matter.

Mr. Powell: How much notice was given to the T.A. Council of the drastic decision announced on 16th January? Is it not disgraceful that it should have been brought to the knowledge of those most concerned only an hour or two before the announcement that a fundamental change was intended?

Mr. Reynolds: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have used more adjectives than disgraceful if other people had been told of my right hon. Friend's statement on the 16th more than an hour or two before the House was told.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: How will the Minister explain to the T.A. Council that the British Government of all the N.A.T.O. Allies is the only one that does not find it necessary to have adequate military reserves?

Mr. Reynolds: The military reserves of the Regular Army are provided in the T. & A.V.R. I and II. The Reserves to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring are the home defence element of the T. & A.V.R.

Singapore (Stores and Equipment)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action is to be taken with regard to the dispersal of stores and equipment on withdrawal from Singapore.

Mr. Reynolds: Stores and equipment belonging to the Services will be withdrawn, transferred or disposed of in the Far East.

Mr. Wall: Will the Minister assure the House that the shambles which occurred in Aden will not be repeated? Would not he agree that if, in the future, we are to go to the help of Australia and New Zealand, it will be necessary to stock our arms and equipment on the Continent of Australia?

Mr. Reynolds: There was no shambles in Aden—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—hon. Gentlemen opposite might like to say how many tens of millions of pounds worth of military equipment were left a: the Suez base.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Is it not true that in almost every withdrawal we have made there have been scandalous losses an the eventual disposal of stores? Can the Minister give an assurance that this will not be repeated in Singapore?

Mr. Reynolds: There have not been scandalous losses. This matter was dealt with by debate in the House. If the hon. Gentleman had been present a few weeks ago, he would have heard all the details.

Surface-to-Surface Weapons

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for expediting the introduction of surface-to-surface weapons before the aircraft carriers, are phased out.

Mr. Mason: We are pressing ahead as rapidly as possible with the plans for developing new tactical ship strike capabilities which I described to the hon. Member on 13th November last.—[Vol. 754, c. 177.]

Mr. Wall: Is the Minister aware that no surface or helicopter-borne weapon has sufficient range at the moment, and that in future the Navy will be at risk against smaller navies armed and equipped with Soviet weapons once the fixed-wing plans are phased out?

Mr. Mason: We recognise the difficulties. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have the AS12 on order. These are air-to surface missiles and we have the possibility of arming new Sea King helicopters with Martel missiles as well.

Mr. Ogden: Helicopters apart, is priority being given in the Naval construction programme for fast missile-carrying small craft capable of dealing with such Styx-type missiles as sank the "Eliat "?

Mr. Mason: A study is taking place, but it is too early to give any details.

Mr. Ramsden: What has happened about the surface-to-surface missile announced as far back as 1966 in connec-

tion with the phasing out of the carriers? Has the Minister anything to say about that?

Mr. Mason: If the hon. Gentleman means the Sea Dart, or the extension of Sea Slug, which are surface-to-air antimissile missiles, perhaps he will let me know which one he has in mind.

Reserve Forces

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for preserving adequate reserve forces on which to build in war time.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for enabling rapid expansion by the Services in an emergency after the recently announced economies have taken place.

Mr. Healey: Plans for reserve forces will be considered in conjunction with the studies we are making of the role, size and shape of our Regular Forces.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the faster he runs down the Regular Forces, the more essential it is to maintain Reserve Forces on which to build? Why has he announced the virtual abolition of the T.A. before this review has been carried out?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman must know that the size of our forces overall, Reserve or Regular, must depend on the tasks they are called on to carry out. The Government have decided on a substantial reduction in the tasks of the Armed Forces, particularly outside Europe. This means that it is necessary, first, to consider the size and shape of the Regular Forces, and then to decide on adjustments if any Reserve organisation is required to meet them.

Mr. Fortescue: Will the Minister assure the House that he will not cause to be sold the drill halls which are so essential for the rapid re-formation of these Reserve Forces?

Mr. Healey: I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman. We are looking into this at the moment.

Mr. Paget: Now that we are confining ourselves largely to a European role, will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that every one of our Allies considers a Reserve Army necessary?

Mr. Healey: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that we have a Reserve Army, and a very much more efficient one than before the reorganisation of the T.A. was carried out by this Government only two years ago.

Nuclear Hunter/Killer Submarines

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what alteration is planned in the programme of construction of nuclear-powered hunter/ killer submarines.

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the rate of construction of hunter/killer submarines proposed before and since the decision announced in Command Paper No. 3515.

Mr. Mason: The rate of build of nuclear hunter/killer submarines is now under consideration. The current new construction programme for these submarines remains as stated in my Answer of 14th December.—[Vol. 756, c. 231.]

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Is it not a strange priority to cut this programme, remembering that the White Paper describes these submarines as being the main striking power of the Navy for the future?

Mr. Mason: Although the rate of construction may be altered, I said on 14th December that the Forces would continue to grow, but we may consider the numbers.

Mr. Powell: If we are not to be told the previous intended rate of construction, and the rate of construction now intended, how is the country and this House to judge the consequence of the Government's decision? Or did they not know what the consequences were before they took the decision?

Mr. Mason: I think that the statement about slowing down new naval construction will be made much clearer when my right hon. Friend makes his statement later this year.

United States Aircraft, United Kingdom (Nuclear Weapons)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what agreement is in force between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government re-

garding United States aircraft carrying nuclear weapons over Great Britain.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if United States bombers have permission to fly over Great Britain with hydrogen bombs or atomic bombs on board; and on how many occasions they have done so.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the carrying of nuclear bombs by United States planes operating from bases in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Healey: Procedures were agreed in 1958 with the Government of the United States whereby, under strict precautions, certain flights over this country by United States aircraft carrying nuclear weapons are permitted. I am not prepared to give details of such flights. They include flights from bases in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, arising from the recent unfortunate crash in Greenland, there is great concern in Britain over nuclear flights? Has there been any recent consultation about this matter, and is my right hon. Friend satisfied about safety from the point of view of radiation danger?

Mr. Healey: Perhaps I might deal with the various points raised by my hon. Friend. First, we are continuously exchanging information with the United States on every aspect of this problem. Secondly, no nuclear weapons which are flown in aircraft from the United Kingdom are armed. Therefore, if there were, unfortunately, to be a crash, there would be no risk whatever of an explosion. We are satisfied that any risk of radiation which might follow the wrecking of an aircraft which was carrying a nuclear weapon could be met by the special R.A.F. safety teams operating in support of the police and fire services.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a public assurance that the safety measures operated by the Americans in this country are at least as good as, and in some respects better than, those of the R.A.F. itself?

Mr. Healey: I am not prepared to give the assurance that American practice in


this respect is better than the practice operated by the R.A.F. I am satisfied that the American and British personnel involved in this type of operation are taking every possible precaution, and that the risk to life or property in this type of operation is minimal.

Mr. Frank Allaun: As my right hon. Friend has not answered my question about the number of occasions on which these flights take place, will he say "Yes" or "No" whether practice flights take place? Secondly, as there have been nearly a dozen accidents in recent years, will he ask Washington to end these over flying rights?

Mr. Healey: First of all, I will not seek to change the present arrangements, which I think are necessary for the security of our country and the Alliance. On the question of the type of flights with nuclear weapons—unarmed nuclear weapons, as I have made clear— they are either operational or logistic flights.

Aircraft (Cancellation Payments)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total of cancellation payments for aircraft ordered for the Royal Air Force in the last three years; how many aircraft these payments represented; and what number of new front-line aircraft have been delivered in the same period.

Mr. Roy Mason: Since October, 1964, payments made in respect of aircraft ordered for the R.A.F. and subsequently cancelled were £41 million. Eighty aircraft were on order at the time of cancellation. In the same period 208 new front-line aircraft were delivered to the R.A.F.

Mr. Digby: Are these rather disquieting figures completely up to date, or are there further cancellation costs to come?

Mr. Mason: The full payments for the Fl 1 1are not yet finally agreed. Therefore the figure will be higher.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is it not a fact that, in view of these cancellations and also the large costs of building barracks and other facilities at home for troops returning from overseas, defence costs are rising and our effective defence is going down? In these circumstances,

would it not be better for the Secretary of State to resign, since he is wedded to cost-effectiveness and not greater costs with less effectiveness?

Mr. Mason: It is not necessary for me to keep reminding the House, but the hon. Gentleman should know, that when we cancelled the 1965 batch of aircraft we saved the country £1,200 million over ten years.

Mr. Ramsden: The right lion. Gentleman mentioned £41 million. Apart from the F.111, how much is still to come?

Mr. Mason: It covers only 80 aircraft, which are the TSR.2s and the F.111s. To be fair to the House, I have said that the F.111 total payments have not yet been agreed on, so they will be higher.

H.M.S. "Resolution"

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the fault in one of the generators of H.M.S. "Resolution" is due to design; and whether a modified version of generator will be fitted in later nuclear submarines.

Mr. Roy Mason: The fault was due to a design weakness. The affected part will be modified in all machines, including those for later nuclear submarines.

Mauritius (British Troops)

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about the movement of British troops from Singapore to Mauritius.

Mr. Reynolds: A company of the 1st Battalion, the King's Shropshire Light Infantry, stationed at Terendak in Malaysia, was dispatched from Singapore to Mauritius in three Hercules aircraft. The first of these left Singapore at 10.30 p.m. G.M.T. on 22nd January, and all three reached Mauritius during the afternoon of 23rd January. A fourth aircraft carrying two Sioux helicopters arrived early on 24th January. A fifth aircraft containing a platoon and a Sioux helicopter left Singapore on 5th February. I should like to pay tribute to all those concerned with this movement for their rapid and effective response. Since they arrived in Mauritius the company


have assisted the local security forces by carrying out patrols and cordon and search operations.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: But what will be the position over the movement of troops, say, at the request of Mauritius in future after we have left our overseas bases?

Mr. Reynolds: If such a request were made, and if, under any agreement which applied then, we met it, we could still do so comparatively easily, but the response time would, of course, be somewhat longer.

Service Personnel (Recruitment)

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that Service personnel understand that the Services will still offer a good career to those who serve in them, with a view to maintaining recruitment.

Mr. Reynolds: We will do all we can to make it clear that the Services will continue to offer a thoroughly worthwhile career for those who serve in them; we are already emphasising this in current recruiting literature.

Rear-Admiral Giles: But is not the attitude of officers and men already serving the most important thing? Should not a Secretary of State, who has lost the confidence of these men, do the proper thing and resign?

Mr. Reynolds: The confidence of those already serving is, of course, very important, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman is, I am sure, aware that there is a very big turnover every year in the Services, so the attitude of the potential recruits is equally important.

Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side, despite our condemnation of the Government's policies, will do our best to support and encourage recruitment for the Forces? But will he ensure that in recruitment literature false statements are not made, such as the statement in the Army recruiting notice in the last couple of days that the new measures are only speeding up reductions announced in July?

Mr. Reynolds: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the first part of his ques-

tion. I have read the Army advertisement and can see nothing wrong with it.

Mr. Winnick: Are Service personnel warned that if by any chance there were a Tory Government there is a possibility that they would be sent to fight in the American war in Vietnam? Are they warned of this possibility?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order. I have not received an answer to my question.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister does not have to answer an hon. Gentleman's question.

All Arms Training Centre, Sennybridge

Mr. Tudor Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence why his Department has proposed to the graziers on the All Arms Training Area, Senny-bridge, Breconshire, a 300 per cent. increase in the annual charges for grazing sheep within the range spread over three years from April 1968; whether he will revise this proposal and seek to impose a smaller increase; and if he will refer the matter to the National Board for Prices and Incomes for their observations.

Mr. Reynolds: Licence charges for grazing sheep at Sennybridge have not changed since 1947 and the proposed increases reflect the current value of the land for grazing.
I do not think that reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes would be appropriate in this case, but I am taking the advice of an independent valuer on the proposed changes.

Mr. Watkins: Would my hon. Friend explain how he can determine that the price to the graziers has increased, when there is no hope of increased productivity on land on this range? The Ministry has not been putting fertilisers there but the sheep.

Mr. Reynolds: The price for grazing on this land was fixed at 2s. 6d. per sheep per year in 1947, and I believe that everyone will accept that the value of that grazing has increased since then. We have scaled the increase over the


next three years, and we are prepared to take the advice of an independent valuer.

Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst (Exercise Unison)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of Exercise Unison held at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, in August, 1967; and what was the cost.

Mr. Reynolds: The purpose of Unison Exercises are to enable the military heads of Commonwealth armed forces to meet to study defence problems of mutual interest. Exercise Unison '67 was the fifth in the series. The theme of the conference was "Partnership in Defence "and study was directed mainly to the means of resolving the related problems of increasing complexity and steeply rising costs of defence.

The exercise cost about £60,000. An exhibition of British military equipment and techniques associated with the exercise cost a further £100,000 to mount.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does that cost include the entire renovation of the old building at Sandhurst for that purpose, and is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that, particularly on the periphery of the arrangements, there is riot considerable over-spending on this exercise?

Mr. Reynolds: I would like notice of the first part of the question, but I guess that most of it is covered by the normal planned maintenance. As to future exercises, we have looked closely at this and are trying to find a better and cheaper method of achieving the same ends.

Commercial Advertisements (Officers)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the appearance of serving officers in Her Majesty's Armed Forces in uniform in commercial advertisements published in national newspapers and other similar publications.

Mr. Reynolds: I consider that serving members should not normally be identified with advertisements for commercial products, but it is impossible to foresee all the circumstances which might arise

and I do not exclude the possibility that permission might again exceptionally be given.

Mr. Lloyd: Is that not a very unsatisfactory Answer? Having undermined the power of the Services, are the Government now set on undermining their dignity? Should this be allowed to happen again in any circumstances?

Mr. Reynolds: Members of Her Majesty's Services can accept paid employment in almost any field, with permission under various regulations applying to the three Services and subject to the over-riding priority being given to their main job. I would not want to strengthen the regulations because they give enough scope to those who give permission in individual cases.

East of Suez (British Shipping)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure the effective protection on the high seas of the 650 British merchant vessels now trading east of Suez.

Mr. Healey: Her Majesty's ships are always ready to do everything possible to come to the aid of British merchant ships in distress.

Mr. Lloyd: Is it not a reasonable assumption that, as the power of the Royal Navy cast of Ascension Island declines, the incidence of acts of piracy increases? Are the Government taking any steps to deal with this in advance, or are, they waiting until there is some civil version of the "Pueblo" incident involving a British ship?

Mr. Healey: I do not think that the possible incidence of piracy is a sufficient justification for the maintenance of a large naval presence by the United Kingdom east of Suez. A very large number of merchant vessels of all countries pursue their courses in this part of the world without naval forces from their own countries being there to protect them. On the other problems raised in the protection of shipping on the high seas, we are, as the hon. Gentleman will know, in discussion now with the Shipping Defence Advisory Committee.

Mr. Rose: How many of these 650 merchant vessels have been subject to


armed attack? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this would be a very dangerous precedent, for example, with regard to Russian ships trading in British ports?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend has a good point there. Over the last five years, the Royal Navy has been involved in 36 incidents, but not incidents of piracy but of towing, fire-fighting or rescue, of which only nine involved British ships. In the 12 months ending September 1967, medical assistance was given by the Royal Navy to nine ships, five of which were British.

Sea-borne Nuclear Deterrent

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in the absence of a fifth Polaris submarine, he is satisfied of the effectiveness of the British sea borne nuclear deterrent; whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Healey: I am quite satisfied that the four Polaris submarines will provide an effective contribution to the Western nuclear strategic deterrent.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While felicitating the Secretary of State on at least maintaining the British nuclear deterrent, may I ask him whether, if he is unwilling to resign for the dishonouring of his own and repeated recent pledges east of Suez, he will consider resigning because of the breaking of the undertakings of the Labour Party to internationalise the nuclear deterrent?

Mr. Healey: As I pointed out in the recent debate, if Ministers resigned every time Government policy affecting their Departments changed, the Opposition Front Bench would be totally denuded of Members.

Mr. Powell: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet sorted out with the Prime Minister whether the British nuclear deterrent is a massive contribution to the Alliance or a pea on a mountain?

Mr. Healey: There is no dispute at all in Her Majesty's Government that the contribution made by the four Polaris submarines to the Western nuclear deterrent is a very substantial one indeed.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Are we to assume that the Prime Minister's definition of

nuclear weapons—that using them would, adjectively, be lunacy—does not apply to the nuclear weapons used by Polaris submarines? Since America now has 40 of these submarines, nuclear powered, what on earth is the use of our spending £20 million a year in operating things that do not add to the deterrent?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend will be aware—and I take this opportunity to remind the House of this—that when the Prime Minister referred to the use of nuclear weapons being lunacy, he was referring to the use of them by United States forces in the current Vietnam situation; and I am sure that, on this matter, there is total agrement on both sides of the House.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Anti-Submarine Vessels

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the highest number of anti-submarine vessels in commission at one time during the war of 1939–45; and what is the number of anti-submarine vessels in commission at the present time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Maurice Foley): In March 1945, there were approximately 875 sloops, frigates, corvettes and destroyers. These included ships of the Royal Navy, and Commonwealth and Allied navies. I regret that I cannot break this figure down to show the Royal Navy contribution without the expenditure of a disproportionate amount of time and effort. Today, 71 Royal Navy ships with an anti-submarine capability are in commission; 27 of the 71 carry helicopters with an anti-submarine capability. Others are being converted to carry helicopters.

Captain Elliot: Does not the Under-Secretary find this contrast thoroughly alarming? In view of the giant strides that have been made in the effectiveness, as well as in the numbers, of submarines possessed by potential enemies, is it not very strange, to put it mildly, that Her Majesty's Government should have cut the Hunter nuclear killer anti-submarine submarines?

Mr. Foley: There are financial limitations on the amount of insurance that we can afford against any threat; but I am satisfied that we are making a major contribution to the allied forces available.

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the classes of vessels and the number of vessels in each class which comprise the predominantly anti-submarine vessels in commission at the present time.

Mr. Foley: As I have already stated, a total of 71 Royal Navy ships have an anti-submarine capability. With permission, I will write to the hon. and gallant Gentleman giving the details he requires.

Captain Elliot: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that several classes of these ships are of comparatively little Practical value in anti-submarine warfare?

Mr. Foley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mayhew: When my hon. Friend says that there are financial limitations on our anti-submarine effort, will he bear in mind that easily the most cost-effective way of contributing to our anti-submarine effort would be to carry on with the nuclear Hunter-killer submarines?

Mr. Foley: We are so carrying on.

Gurkha Brigade

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Gurkha Brigade.

Mr. Reynolds: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during his statement on public expenditure on 16th January.— [Vol. 756, c. 1583.]

Mr. Allason: I was hoping that the Minister might have had second thoughts about this. Can he say if there will be compensating aid to Nepal to make good the severe losses to the Nepalese economy which will result from these cuts? I there is to be this aid, will the saving in overseas currency be commensurate with the severe loss of fighting power which these cuts will represent to our forces?

Mr. Reynolds: We are compensating individual Gurkhas for loss of career Vol. 758

prospects in the Gurkha Brigade. The question of economic aid to the Kingdom of Nepal should be addressed to my right hon. Friend concerned with that matter. There is no direct link between the military capability we would require and the compensation we would have to pay for running down the Gurkha Brigade. The military capability is linked to the commitments we have in the area.

Mr. Lipton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Nepalese Government are quite willing for the Gurkha Brigade to be disbanded because they have reached the stage when they do not want to hire out their subjects as mercenaries to other powers?

Mr. Reynolds: I think that there is a feeling of this nature in the Kingdom of Nepal. However, I have had discussions—and there is agreement on this—with Ministers in the Government of Nepal about the present rundown. It is clear that we have not gone beyond 1971 in these discussions, as was announced by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ramsden: Does not the form of the announcement, which carries the Government's policies up to 1971, inevitably place a grave question mark over the future of the Hong Kong garrison? Ought not this question mark to be removed, even if the present Government may not anticipate being in control of events in 1971?

Mr. Reynolds: There is not necessarily any direct interaction between the two points. The announcement was to continue the rundown to a figure of about 6,000 men by 1971. I wish to make it clear that no decisions beyond that date have at present been taken.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of reports alleging that a firm decision has already been taken to wind up the entire Gurkha Brigade by 1974? Would he care to categorically deny that?

Mr. Reynolds: No decisions have been taken beyond the date announced in the House, which was the end of 1971.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence where the depot of the Gurkha Brigade will be sited following the withdrawal from Malaysia and Singapore.

Mr. Reynolds: The present depots of the Brigade of Gurkhas will be retained at Paklihawa and Dharan in Nepal. The training depot in Malaysia may move to Hong Kong.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if the depot is moved to Hong Kong recruitment will be made more difficult and that the assimilation of families there will be more complicated? What talks has he had with the Nepalese Government about these two important matters, particularly if the Gurkha Brigade is to continue after 1971?

Mr. Reynolds: I merely said that the training depot in Malaysia might move to Hong Kong. No decision has yet been taken. Recruitment is dealt with at Paklihawa and Dharan, in Nepal.

Mr. Ramsden: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm what he failed to say in reply to an earlier Question; that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government fully to maintain the Hong Kong garrison after 1971?

Mr. Reynolds: I think I am right in saying that our intention to maintain that garrison was emphasised by my right hon. Friend in his statement of 16th January. If, by chance, it was not, I emphasise it now.

Beira Patrol

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for Defence on which port it is planned to base the Beira patrol after 1971.

Mr. Healey: H.M. ships, while engaged on the Beira patrol, are not dependent on short-based facilities.

Mr. Moyle: Will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that it will be possible to maintain the Beira patrol for as long as is necessary to maintain sanctions against the illegal Smith régime?

Mr. Healey: I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that the maintenance of the Beira patrol does not depend on the availability of base facilities in the area.

Mr. Sharples: To what extent do ships involved in this patrol make use of South African ports?

Mr. Healey: Without wishing to give a detailed answer without notice of that question, I can say that ships in this part of the world sometimes put into South African ports for rest and recreation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh]—and also into Mombassa in Kenya.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what agreement exists at present about the use of Mombassa, to which he referred?

Mr. Healey: Her Majesty's ships have used Mombassa on several occasions for rest and recreation purposes, but if the hon. Gentleman will table a Question on the subject I will try to answer it in greater detail.

British Forces, Germany

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further reduction in British forces in Germany is being planned.

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for reducing the size of the British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. Healey: None, Sir.

Mr. Goodhew: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity today to do what he failed to do the last time I asked him this question and now give a categorical assurance that he has no plans, initiated before the announcement of devaluation, to reduce our forces in Germany by a half?

Mr. Healey: I have already given that assurance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not disputing my good faith in giving it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the remarks of Sir John Hackett, can my right hon. Friend say on what authority he communicated those views to The Times?

Mr. Healey: I understand that later Questions on this subject appear on the Order Paper.

Army Units (Overseas Training)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements for training of Regular Army units in overseas territories he intends to make


after 1971 in view of Great Britain's continuing Treaty commitments overseas.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): Regular training overseas will continue to be necessary for the Army, but it is too soon to make detailed arrangements for 1972 onwards.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the Minister assure us that, as soon as the arrangements are made, an announcement will be made in the House? Is he aware that our troops cannot be expected to operate in a tropical climate unless a training period is given beforehand? Does he therefore realise that it is important for him to report to the House as soon as his plans are made?

Mr. Boyden: Arrangements are being made. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the necessity for different arrangements to be made. I assure him they are being made all the time.

East of Suez

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the creation of a capability based in this country for use east of Suez after the withdrawal from British bases there; what heavy equipment will be provided; what arrangements he is making to move that equipment to places where is may be required; whether air support will be available; and what will be, for planning purposes, the time to be allowed for deployment.

Mr. Healey: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or. 16th January.—[Vol. 756 c. 1.580–4.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that during the debate on public expenditure the Foreign Secretary laid great weight on the creation of this so-called "capability" as an argument against the suggestion that we were running out on our pledges to our friends across the world? Does not the fact that, a month later, the Secretary of State cannot give even the basic particulars asked for in the Question indicate that the whole thing is a sham?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was present during the debate a week after the debate on the defence cuts and will therefore be aware that I gave some indication of the capability we might have. What I am not prepared to do, and what I cannot do until a good deal more work has been done, is to answer the detailed points the right hon. Gentleman has put down.

Sir T. Beamish: Are talks going on with the Australian and New Zealand Governments about the possibility of our joining the Anzus Pact? Is consideration being given to any changes that may be necessary in S.E.A.T.O.?

Mr. Healey: We have made it clear on many occasions that as our forces run down in the Far East changes in our S.E.A.T.O. commitments will be required, and consideration of the nature of the changes is under way. I am not aware of any request from members of the Anzus Pact that we should join it.

Mr. Paget: Is not the reply to each of the sections of this Question: "None, Sir "?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir.

Mr. Boyle: Will the Secretary of State tell the House by what route he intends to reinforce the garrison in Hong Kong after 1971, and what delay in getting troops to Hong Kong in the event of a serious internal security situation would be involved as a result of the recent Government decision?

Mr. Healey: A variety of routes will be open to us after 1971. Should it be necessary to reinforce the garrison by the west-about route that would take little longer than by the east-about route at present.

Mr. Mayhew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of those who welcomed the Government's decision to withdraw from Singapore and the Persian Gulf always recognised that some small residual responsibility would remain, including responsibility for law and order in dependent territories and contributing, if necessary, to the defence of Australia and New Zealand? Is he aware that the provision he is making does not seem adequate? Therefore, will he consider again the possibility of a small residual


presence capable of reinforcement in Australia?

Healey: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I am well aware—and the Government stated it in their recent statement on expenditure cuts—that we must retain the capability of maintaining law and order in our remaining dependent territories, and also giving assistance to Australia and New Zealand if under direct attack, but if any of my hon. Friend's political allies on this matter agree with him on the question of a presence in Australia, I would be interested to hear their names.

Mr. Powell: Is it not becoming clear that the Government's talk of a general capability is as much spoof as their previous professions have turned out to be?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. But I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is back in form, and using that word again.

Mr. Shinwell: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any part of the capability will be provided out of the forces assigned to N.A.T.O.? Further, in preparing the White Paper on Defence, which comes to the House shortly, will he give information about the forces provided by other countries associated with N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Healey: As I think I made clear in the foreign affairs debate a few weeks ago, the forces which we maintain in the European theatre will be largely declared to N.A.T.O., but we shall reserve the right, as we have reserved it and exercised it on many occasions in recent years—to withdraw forces in case of need for operations elsewhere. The bulk of the naval forces that have operated east of Suez over the last 20 years are declared in various categories to N.A.T.O., and operate outside Europe with the agreement of N.A.T.O.
As to the second part of my right hon. Friend's supplementary question, I am afraid that the preparation of the White Paper is now so far under way that I am not able to include an annex giving the information he has requested.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to

give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

Aden (Awards)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will recommend the striking of a medal for service in Aden.

Mr. Reynolds: No, Sir. Service in Aden has been recognised by the award of the General Service Medal 1962 with clasp "South Arabia ".

Sir G. Nabarro: On awards for operations in Aden, can the Minister tell the House why he failed to recommend for the gallant Commanding Officer of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, Colonel Colin Mitchell—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A supplementary question must arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.

Sir G. Nabarro: But it is on an award, Sir: I was asking a supplementary question on an award.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The supplementary question must arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It directly arises—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not waste Question Time. The hon. Gentleman must accept my Ruling. Sir Gerald Nabarro—next Question.

R.A.F. (Harrier Aircraft)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Harriers will join the Royal Air Force this year; how many are to be manufactured for the Royal Air Force; what is the total cost; and what reduction is proposed as a result of Command Paper No. 3515.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): No reduction is proposed in the 70 Harrier aircraft on order for the R.A.F. Deliveries should start early 1969 as planned. Aircraft costs will be subject to the outcome of the negotiations referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology, in reply to Questions on 6th November


and 18th December, 1967.—[Vol. 753, c. 63; Vol. 756, c. 309-10.]

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman recently said that the front-line strength of the R.A.F. would amount in 1971 to 400 jet aircraft. Are the 70 Harriers included in that figure? Does his reply mean that something of the order of 17 per cent. of the whole front-line strength of the R.A.F. is to be represented by these Harrier aircraft?

Mr. Rees: The 70 Harriers are included, but the hon. Gentleman must take account as well of Nimrods, Jaguars and Phantoms.

Mr. Baker: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many sales to overseas countries he anticipates for Harrier aircraft?

Mr. Rees: Not at the moment, but this is a remarkable aircraft and one has hopes that there will be overseas sales.

Mr. Corfield: Can the Minister clarify the position? Is there a firm contract? Have terms been approved? Is the company in a position to go ahead with production.

Mr. Rees: The responsibility here lies with the Minister of Technology. We are satisfied that all is well in this respect. An incentive production agreement has yet to be agreed.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman said that these aircraft were on order: is that true or not true?

Mr. Rees: It is true.

Naval Construction Programme

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what types of vessel other than hunter-killer submarines the decision announced in Command Paper No. 3515, to reduce the rate of construction, refers.

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a detailed statement about the future programme of naval construction, with special reference to submarines and anti-submarine vessels.

Mr. Mason: We shall be looking at the whole of the planned naval new construction programme in depth, and it will be

some time before precise reductions are decided.

Mr. Powell: If the Government had no idea at the time of what alterations they were to make in the naval building programme, how did they dare to make the announcement of 16th January and take financial credit for it in their estimates?

Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman will know that when long lead items have been ordered for certain vessels it is difficult to turn them back. All these were planned. No new items have been ordered and, therefore, no new expenditure incurred. We can take action to slow down the naval new construction programme, but this will not only affect submarines but other vessels as well.

Persian Gulf

Colonel Sir T. Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to maintaining a British military presence in the Persian Gulf after 1971, in view of the offer from the States in the area to bear part of the cost and the fact that this would relieve the foreign currency burden; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Healey: As my noble Friend, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said recently, it would not be practicable after 1971, without overstraining our national resources, to give a continuing military presence in the Gulf the hacking in men and materials it would need, even with financial contributions from the Rulers. —[Lords, Vol. 288, c. 774.]

Sir T. Beamish: Since the sudden decision to withdraw by 1971 was taken with the sole object of saving foreign currency, and entirely contrary to the Minister's advice on defence, why does not the right hon. Gentleman take this chance of getting the best of both worlds by accepting this most generous offer?

Mr. Healey: I have made it clear, rind so have my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of. the Exchequer, that the objective of the recently announced cuts was not to save foreign exchange but to reduce public expenditure as a whole. As I made clear in our debate in the House at the time, the total cost of a presence in the Gulf must


have added to it the cost of any military capability which might be required to support that presence. That is why the decision to leave the Far East by the end of 1971 needed to be accompanied by a decision to leave the Gulf by the same date if the necessary reductions in expenditure were to be achieved.

Mr. Maudling: Will the Secretary of State give figures of the foreign exchange cost and the cost in terms of resources involved in maintaining our position in the Gulf?

Mr. Healey: The foreign exchange cost has been given in previous White Papers. I will consider whether we can give some further information on cost in terms of resources when we discuss the Statement on the Defence Estimates in a few weeks' time.

Mr. Maudling: If this vital decision on foreign policy was based on the cost in resources, the right hon. Gentleman must know the cost.

Mr. Healey: Of course I know many elements of the cost in resources. The right hon. Gentleman must remember, because he was in the House at the time, that among the various elements of military capabilities which we need to keep so long as we are in the Gulf there is the cost of the carrier force whose total functional cost is about £140 million a year.

Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to offer any justification for his recent quite extraordinary statement about white slaving and mercenary practices?

Mr. Healey: I made quite clear that we do not believe that even with financial contributions from the Rulers the enormous cost of maintaining a presence in the Gulf after we have withdrawn from the Far East would be justified. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about white slaving? "]

Hon. Members: Resign.

AGRICULTURAL, HORTICUL- TURAL AND FORESTRY INDUSTRY TRAINING BOARD

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. HAZELL: To ask the Minister of Labour what reply he has given to the request from the Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board for assistance towards its second year costs.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will answer Written Question No. 106 [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The interchange is over.

Mr. Hattersley: Following discussions with representatives of the Board and of the employers' and workers' unions, the Government has recognised that the foot-and-mouth outbreak has caused widespread disruption to the Board's operations just at the time when the first levy was to be raised.
My right hon. Friend has, therefore, undertaken to continue the assistance given to the Board during its first year until the end of March by making a special grant of up to £450,000. This is on the condition, which the Board has accepted, that it covers the remainder of its second year costs with a levy of £3 per regular full-time worker, and an amended levy Order will be laid before the House shortly.

Mr. Hazell: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful approach to this problem, which we appreciate. Can he inform the House whether it is the intention of the Board to adhere to the training programme at its original level despite the reduction in the levy?

Mr. Hattersley: The net effect of the grant alteration is that the training programme for this year will be able to continue and the cost to the farmer will be about 50 per cent. of what it would have been had the grant not been made.

Mr. Godber: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement he has made is very much in line with the proposal I


made in the recent debate, and that I welcome it? Is he also aware that I hope the industry will consider it a fair solution of the difficult problem with which it is confronted and that, provided the Board will make use of the time so gained, it may make a realistic assessment in agreement with the industry of the sort of programme which is needed for this important industry? It is absolutely essential that the Board works with the full support of and full co-operation with the industry.

Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the success and the future of the Board. As to whose idea this was in the first place, I am sure that no one wants to compete for an idea which we all agree will be of great help to the industry.

Mr. John Wells: Did the hon. Gentleman give notice to my hon. Friends, who raised this matter a fortnight ago, that he would seek leave to bring forward the Answer to this Question today? It is most inconvenient. Will he bear in mind that the great hulk of the farming community, is still dissatisfied? While the farming community recognises that it is better than nothing, during the intervening months will he ask the board positively to think about the long-term future with a view to formulating entirely new policies?

Mr. Hattersley: As to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I understood that the Prayer was in his name and I told him that a statement would be made and a decision was arrived at today. Whether he notified his hon. Friends I do not know, but he knew it. Clearly, the Board must work in such a way as is acceptable to the industry, though that may involve changes of attitude in some parts of the industry itself. I agree that the future of the Board rests on a happy working arrangement between the Board and the industry.

Mr. Hawkins: Does not the Minister realise that the main objection to this Board is not the amount of levy, but the 'act that a new Board is to be super-imposed on training establishments which are very well thought of by the farming Industry and that this will be merely another bureaucratic set-up above all those boards?

Mr. Hattersley: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) does not take that view. If the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) reads the debates which have taken place about the existing Order he will see that it is the intention of the Board to work hand in hand with existing institutions and to promote their work.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the point as to how far the Government contribution goes? Does it go to the March this year or next year? Will he take it from me that the industry will be disappointed that he has not decided to cancel the levy entirely for the year to come and by Government funds take over the whole burden, as should have been done?

Mr. Hattersley: The grant goes to March, 1968. Whether the industry will share the hon. Member's views about training in this sector I doubt. I think that the industry will consider it fair and sensible.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What benefit will there be for the workers in Scotland?

Mr. Hattersley: Workers in Scotland will benefit in very much the same way as workers throughout the United Kingdom. This proposal will give them an opportunity for increased and enhanced training which will bring the prospects of more efficient working and greater remuneration into the industry.

Sir J. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman said that he wants to have the closest cooperation between the Board and the industry. Does he realise that the industry does not want this scheme?

Mr. Hattersley: I certainly am not aware of that. As I told the House a fortnight ago, the Board was set up at the express wish of the industry. [HON.MEMBERS:" No."]The industry approached my right hon. Friend and asked that a board should be set up for agriculture.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Harper.]

PROTECTION OF BENEFICIARIES

3.39

Sir Barnett Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable a person who, or whose spouse, is referred to in a will as a beneficiary to join at least two persons not so referred to in attesting the execution of that will without invalidating his benefit or the benefit of the spouse.
I have introduced, or attempted to introduce, a number of Private Members' Bills and I have used the heading, "Believe it or believe it not" in some of those cases. I say with all deference to the House that my proposed Bill comes under that particular heading. This House and other places, unfortunately—and perhaps I should declare a personal interest—have an unhappy habit of not realising how important the legal profession is to the lay community. I am a solicitor. I hope that the House will realise this today as we are dealing with a position which arose in a case recently tried in the courts, when it was held that £8,000 which a testator intended to be given to two beneficiaries had to be diverted to someone else in consequence of the lack of knowledge of the law of the person who wanted that bequest to be carried into effect.
The layman frequently does not understand the law. Hon. Members can readily realise that, faced with the existing plethora of laws, it is very difficult for a layman, who perhaps need have recourse to a lawyer rarely during his lifetime, to know where he stands on any particular question involving a legal point. Many laymen believe that they know what the legal position is, but in fact they do not. It is precisely the same as is the position of a person who attempts to heal himself without knowing what he should do, but believing that he knows better than a doctor and understands what the remedy is. The matter I am dealing with now is a glaring illustration of an unjust position that has prevailed for 130 years.
Every hon. Member here is not only assumed to be, but is, I am sure, intelligent, but is there any hon. Member, other than a lawyer, who would have believed for one moment that a testator's wishes can be frustrated in that certain

provisions he wishes to make in his will would not be effective if the people who are to benefit had been asked by him to witness the attestation of his will if he did so even with two other witnesses? This is exactly what happened in a case that came before the courts only a few days ago.
I beg the House, when it is dealing in future with matters involving intricacies of law, not to give the impression that we hon. and right hon. Members are the only responsible people and that the legal profession is one which should in some way be denigrated. On the contrary, the legal profession serves a very important purpose in the life of the community. If people realised this they would recognise that the case to which I have referred is a perfect illustration of how their wishes can be nullified because they did not know the law as they had not consulted a solicitor.
I quote from the Law Report in The Times of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case to which I have referred. The Court of Appeal held that
A person who signs a will as an attesting witness may not take a benefit under it, even though it is clearly the intention of the testator that he or she should do so, and even though the will is also attested by two independent witnesses.
The report says:
Lord Justice Russell and Lord Justice Salmon expressed the opinion that section 15 of the Wills Act. 1837 "—
which I do not propose to read; I do not suppose that anybody here, with the exception of the lawyers, would understand what it meant even if I did read it; I say that with due respect to the House—
should be amended to permit a beneficiary to take under a will even though he or she has attested it as a witness provided that there are in addition two other independent witnesses.
The will was a holograph will, similar to printed forms which perhaps hundreds of thousands of people buy and sign without knowing what they are doing, how it has to be attested, in whose presence it must be attested, or that the attesting witnesses must sign it in the presence of each other and of the testator. This was a will written on a sheet of paper. It is obvious that the testator and the witnesses had no idea of the effect of the will in the form in which it was executed and attested.
The report in The Times, dealing first with Lord Justice Willmer's judgment, said:
It seemed to his Lordship that all of the pointers which had been relied on in argument for the plaintiffs and by the judge in reaching his conclusion "—
that is, in the lower court—
the fact that the two independent witnesses had added their addresses, whereas the plaintiffs had not done so; the description of Mrs. L… as' the other witness ', and the testator's remark that he wanted the plaintiffs to sign 'to make it stronger' —were at best equivocal… Lord Justice Russell, concurring, said that 'he would welcome a change of the law in regard to section 15 why it was necessary to interfere in cases where there were two credible witnesses, he could not imagine.
Lord Justice Salmon concurred.
The position is so clear that I do not need to take up any more time in explaining to the House the need for my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Barnett Janner, Mr. Jack Dunnett, Sir George Sinclair, Mr. Gordon Oakes, Dame Joan Vickers, Mr. William Wilson, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Geoffrey Wilson, Sir Myer Galpern, Mr. Walter Clegg, Mr. David Ensor, and Mr. Emlyn Hooson.

PROTECTION OF BENEFICIARIES

Bill to enable a person who, or whose spouse, is referred to in a will as a beneficiary to join at least two persons not so referred to in attesting the execution of that will without invalidating his benefit or the benefit of the spouse, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd February, and to be printed. [Bill 85]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION

Mr. Speaker: May I announce to the House that I have not selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hurst), and the Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) and other hon. Members. I imagine that the point made in those Amendments will emerge during the debate, if hon. Members catch the eye of Mr. Speaker.

4.48 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I beg to move,
That this House regrets that the education service should have been subjected to cuts which are educationally damaging, based on a wrong choice of priorities, and disproportionate in relation to the economy measures as a whole.
I am sure that the whole House will have taken note, if I may respectfully say so with agreement, that the points which would have been in order and relevant on the Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) and other hon. Members can arise on our Motion. lf, Mr. Speaker, you had chosen to call that Amendment I should have been very glad to have accepted it as an addendum to our Motion.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Opposition did not include it in their Motion?

Sir E. Boyle: Because the issue of decisions taken at the Labour Party conference seemed to me to be more the concern of the Labour Party.
On one point there should be little disagreement in the House, namely, that Tuesday, 16th January, was a sad day for the education service. I have been, by chance, associated with the service for about 11 years. Whatever criticisms may be made in the country of the period during which my party was in power, not many people will doubt that the 10 years


from 1955 to 1965 constituted one of the most exciting periods of educational expansion in the history of our nation. The proportion of the national income devoted to education rose steadily from 3.4 per cent. in 1955 to 5.4 per cent. 10 years later, and during those years education was taking a steadily rising share of a gross national product which itself grew by 34 per cent.
It was a period of massive expansion in teacher training, higher education and further education. Young people were responding in ever larger numbers to the increased opportunities offered. For example, the numbers of those with the minimum qualifications for university entry rose from, I think, 24,000 in 1955 to 70,000 10 years later. It was a period of major policy decisions, including the decision that the Department of Education should have a major role to play as a central source of ideas. I believe that the new concept of the Department, which we all accept today, owes more to Sir David Eccles, as he then was, than to any other single person.
Above all, the decade from 1955 to 1965 was associated with a far greater degree of public concern with education than ever before. There were two reasons. The first was the realisation of the significance of educational advance to an industrial nation like our own. "At a time of rapid technological change, the highest priority of all in the field of investment is the investment in Britain's children." Those were not my words, but the words of the present Prime Minister in May, 1963. I wonder how he thought that he was fulfilling them in his statement of 16th January.
There was also a growing concern to extend opportunity more widely. The nation's conscience was stirred by the Newsom Report and, more recently, by the Plowden Report, and there was a greater realisation that the pool of potential ability in this country was much deeper than we had previously thought it to be.
Having said that the period between 1955 and 1965 was an exciting decade of educational expansion, I do not mean to imply that all was well. It was not. First, there was a relative neglect of primary education, and that was why I appointed

the Plowden Council in 1963 and why at the end of 1963 I announced, as Minister, that some millions of pounds in each major school building programme should be set aside for primary improvement. That was a promise which I kept, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) so long as we were in power.
Second, there was during this period anxiety, by no means confined to committed Right-wing political supporters, that we were risking a widening of opportunity at the expense of quality in education.
Third, I certainly agree that the rate of educational advance in the 1960s, at 6 per cent. a year in real terms—much faster than the rate of our economic growth—helped to put a short-term strain on the balance of payments. But it is worth remembering that at present, while we in Britain are planning a setback in education—because that is what the Government's measures amount to—the United States Government, who are also concerned with their balance of payments, are planning a considerably increased educational budget.
This leads me to the effect of the Government's recent measures on the education service. I take as my starting point an article by Sir William Alexander, the Secretary of the Association of Education Committees, which appeared in the weekly journal, Education, for 19th January. Anyone who regularly reads the educational Press will know that Sir William is impartial in his criticism of political figures. He said three things. First:
Education appears to have been singled out by the Government to suffer more severely than other services from the axe.
Second:
The direct cuts on education are only part of the danger.
And third:
The education service has suffered a very severe setback, and it will take a good many years before it recovers.
I believe that these charges are justified, and they explain why we have put down the Motion.
I do not intend this afternoon to focus exclusively on the Government's decision to postpone raising the school-leaving age. None the less, I shall start with


that decision, which has attracted by far the most attention. I believe that it was a wrong decision, and I want also to show that the Prime Minister's case that the postponement was an alternative to other cuts and dislocation in the school building programme is completely bogus.
May I, first, briefly remind the House of the history of the matter. We took the legal powers to raise the school-leaving age to 16 in 1944. The Crowther Committee, in its Report, "Fifteen to Eighteen ", which appeared in 1959, put a very strong case for the view that this reform was urgent and important both in the national interests and in the interests of young people. I venture to say to the Liberal hon. Members who put down an Amendment that the Crowther Committee put an overwhelming case for the view that the raising of the school-leaving age should come before compulsory part-time education up to the age of 18.
In 1960, following the Crowther Report, Sir David Eccles announced in the House that he thought that the Government should be able to reach a decision on the timing by the end of that Parliament. In 1963, the Newsom Committee again reaffirmed the importance of the reform. The Leader of the House will remember, for he took part in the debate, that I announced on 27th January, 1964, a date two years later than Newsom had recommended, 27 years after the passage of the 1944 Act. I may have done some rash and foolish Things in my time, but I have never looked on that as one of my more irresponsible actions.
I still feel that, for three reasons, this is a highly important reform. First, as I said four years ago, it is a test of our commitment to the ideal of secondary education for all—secondary education as compared with senior elementary education. As the Schools Council has said, the opportunities of a five year Course are totally different from those of a four-year course. If we believe in secondary education for all, as I do, it is wrong to break off secondary education in the middle of adolescence.
Second, from the national point of view, we need a more adaptable labour force. The days have gone by when it made sense for a man to be trained so

that he became capable of doing just one particular job throughout his working life. We know today that a growing proportion of our labour force will have to be capable of adapting to change. I believe that a longer period of full time education, not necessarily a longer period in the same school, is an essential precondition of securing the more adaptable labour force that we so urgently require.
One important effect of a later leaving age—and I emphasise this to the House, because it is sometimes forgotten—will certainly be an increase in voluntary staying on in full-time education to 17 or 18. I do not believe that our chief industrial competitors, such as America and Japan, would have put off this reform if they were in our position.
Third, the reform is essential if we are to make a reality of regional policy. We all know that there are different proportions and quite different traditions of voluntary staying on in the North and South in Britain.
Those are the three reasons why I believe that the reform is essential and should not have been put off.
I know that there are those who think that we should not in any case have been ready for this reform in 1971. Well, London, which, I believe, in numbers is the largest of all the local authorities, would have been ready. The average size of school classes would temporarily have had to go up by the equivalent of half a pupil. There has also been a great deal of progress in London and other authorities over curriculum development. We saw this in the Newsom Report. Paragraph 119 of the Report was already able to quote a five year curriculum for the really less able. Since then, there has been the Philippa Fawcett humanities project and much more besides.
I went recently to a large London school, not in a wealthy area, where 75 per cent. of the pupils stay on voluntarily. The headmaster told me that 95 per cent. of the parents at a meeting would have preferred an increase in the charge for school meals and even voluntary contributions towards the cost of school books to the postponement of this reform.
I do not believe that we shall ever be completely ready for it until everyone knows willy-nilly that it is coming. One of the great harms of the Government's


decision has been that it has interrupted the momentum towards this reform. The right hon. Gentleman bears a considerable share of moral responsibility. When he became Secretary of State, he said at his first Press conference—it was on the record and attributable; there was no Chalfont nonsense about it—
I am committed to raising the school age.
It is not surprising, in view of what has happened, that there is now a lack of confidence even about 1973, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make it plainer today than he did last Thursday that both sides of the House are pledged to the introduction of the higher school leaving age at the new date.
I have two specific questions to put to him about the postponement, and if he is unable at once to answer them perhaps the right hon. Lady will be able to do so later. The first is rather technical, but I have a particular reason for putting it. When calculating in the White Paper that the postponement would save £33 million in 1968–69, what, so to speak, mix of major and minor capital works projects did the Department assume in relation to the £36 million of school leaving age building starts which are now cancelled?
In deciding that the net saving would be £33 million, what mix of major and minor projects was assumed? The arithmetic of paragraph 32 of the White Paper only makes sense on the assumption that virtually all the cancelled projects will be minor, and I find that incredible. I believe that the figure of £33 million is probably over-estimated by £5 million to £10 million. One of the reasons I raise this is that there was an atmosphere of amateurism and improvisation in Curzon Street on the night of 15th-16th January which caused the educational Press considerable annoyance. That is why these figures should be clarified.
Secondly, has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say about the suggestion for having a single school leaving date? I have never believed this to be a substitute for raising the leaving age. As I recall it, Lord Eccles very nearly brought in this reform, but failed to do so largely because of doubts on both sides of industry. It is worth considering, however. What are the right hon. Gentleman's conclusions?
If the direct saving brought about by postponement has been exaggerated, as I believe it has, the dislocation caused to local authorities will be very great indeed. This leads me to something about school building and the right hon. Gentleman's Circular 6/68. In our debate on the Government's cuts, the Prime Minister said:
…still more important…is the maintenance of the fabric of the education programme, including the school building and other priority programmes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1978]
In that context, the word "fabric" was one of the sickest jokes to come out of Downing Street for some time.
The best comment on the Prime Minister's speech was made by a very able former education correspondent of The Guardian, Mr. Tyrrell Burgess, on 2nd February, when he wrote
.…it is now clear that the postponement, so far from being an alternative to cuts and dislocation, is actually causing them. As education officers and chairmen of committees are discovering as they read Circular 6/68, the whole basis of their previous planning has been undermined, and teachers and parents will find that promised new schools or replacements are postponed, perhaps for many years.
This is a very serious matter. What the circular says is that all the outstanding school building projects or earlier projects, totalling about £70 million, which will not have started on the ground by April next must be resubmitted to the Department and must compete with projects already approved for the 1968–69 programme for a place within the new programme limit of £89 million.
I make this initial remark on that point. If we really want to induce in the country as a whole a dangerous hatred and contempt of Whitehall and the Government machine, this is the way to go about it. If we want nationalist parties not only in Wales and Scotland, but in every region of England, this is the way to do it. Let us consider what this means to parents and school governors.
The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said in the debate on the Plowden Report that it was the improvement element in the school building programme which was the measure of the Government's priorities. Anyone who has been a Minister responsible for


education knows that the deferring of school improvements or replacements is always one of the most unpleasant decisions one has to take. Any Minister finds that the claims of overcrowding or of moving populations reduce the improvement programme to well below what he would like.
But at least up to now, when an improvement project has found a place in tie programme, it has stayed there. If it could not start in the year for which it had been approved, it has started in the following year. The circular, by insisting that the whole of the backlog must be resubmitted, cancels all this and must lead to indefinite postponement of large numbers of urgently needed school building projects which local authorities thought, with every justification, had been allocated to them. Of course, paragraph 8(a) of the circular makes it unpleasantly clear that it is improvement projects which are to suffer.
among the projects to be reviewed are a considerable number designed to replace or improve existing schools. The educational merit of such projects is considerable but authorities will need to consider whether they have the same degree of urgency as other, basic need, projects which have been programmed.
Those are ominous words.
Of course, we realise that, in the present circumstances the amount of new improvement projects which can be scheduled must be limited. That is not in dispute. But Circular 6/68 says, in effect, that projects which local authorities and school governors thought were "in the bag ", had been firmly allocated, are now cut of the bag, and must be played for all over again in future programmes. This is a disturbing situation.
The right hon. Gentleman said on 5th January that he would be extremely disappointed if the money set aside for improving primary schools were affected by the forthcoming cuts. I wonder what he meant. And what about local education authorities like London, which have virtually no backlog? Are their programmes to be chopped by other people's backlogs? If so, that would be a poor reward for being a progressive authority. Is a big city with appalling slum problems but virtually no backlog to be denied a single primary replacement because another authority has put up such a bad comprehensive scheme that the Department

has felt bound to hold up its building programme? That is not an academic point and it is the sort of problem that the right hon. Gentleman will have to tackle in the coming months.
The Department and local education authorities have about two months to sort out the whole of next year's programme, otherwise there is real risk of insufficient places and of children being kept out of school in the early 1970s. This situation in which the right hon. Gentleman has got himself and the local authorities may be his and even the Prime Minister's idea of efficient planning, but I am sure that it is not ours on this side of the House.
The combination of the postponement of the school leaving age and Circular 6/68 must entail some postponement and some slowing down of secondary school reorganisation. After all, many reorganisation schemes were deliberately geared to the money for the raising of the school leaving age. I can give a couple of examples. Bedfordshire, which I visited recently, intended to spend all its money for the raising of the school-leaving age on middle schools and, reasonably enough, was going for a middle school system. Southampton—and I should be a little nervous at mentioning this in Mr. Speaker's presence—was going for a scheme of secondary schools and secondary colleges, with all the extra money going for the improvement of infants schools—a very good scheme, but again a scheme which will now have to be postponed.
Furthermore, there is a real risk that a number of authorities will now take the line, "Let us go for a scheme which will not be disastrous even if the age is not raised in 1973 ". In consequence, they may go for a botched-up scheme of all-through comprehensives. We say firmly that what matters is not the speed of comprehensive reorganisation so much as that any scheme must be educationally sound, and if there is not the money to carry out a sound scheme here and now, reorganisation in an area should be postponed.
I want now to come to something which is as important, to paragraph 51 of the statement which dealt with the current expenditure of local authorities. Paragraph 51 says that the rate support grant


paid to local authorities by the Government is to be frozen for 1968–69 and that the Government will expect local authorities to absorb any increases in cost which they cannot avoid by making savings elsewhere, and that the increase for 1969–70 is to be limited to only 3 per cent.
This is the most serious threat to the fabric of the education service in the whole package. Let me make it quite clear that what is at stake is not expansion, not the list of new things which some people would like to do in education; it is the maintenance of existing policies. Long before 16th January education committee chairmen were finding that they had a tremendous financial struggle to stay in the same place, and paragraph 51 is totally inconsistent with the stated educational objectives on which we have all been agreed during the past decade. The proportion of the fixed commitments in the educational budget is extremely high, as one realises from the fact that 60 per cent. goes on teachers' salaries for a start.
There is one question to which I hope we shall have an answer. What about the immediate implications for local authorities of the recent Burnham technical and farm institute awards? Authorities have had no assurance that these awards, even in the current financial year, will not fall on the ratepayer. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give a satisfactory answer, how can he say, as he did only six days ago, that there will be no redistribution as between the Exchequer and the rates? Furthermore, the whole of the cost of the prospective increase in student grants, to which I shall refer shortly, will have to be borne by local education authorities.
Bearing in mind the rising school population and what we all hope will be the increase in voluntary staying on, I do not believe that the objectives of paragraph 51 can be carried out without both placing an extra and intolerable strain on the ratepayer and doing serious damage to the essential fabric of the education service. After talking to a number of large authorities, I can tell the House exactly what I fear is likely to happen. There will be a restriction of the development of further education

just when everyone is agreed that as a nation we need to devote more resources to professional training. I do not mean to make a cheap point, but if the right hon. Gentleman will consult some of the Government's own specialist advisers whom they brought in, he will learn, certainly from all those to whom I have spoken, of the importance which they attach to professional training for those of good second grade ability. A cutback in the development of further education at this moment simply cannot make sense.
There will be a real cut-back in equipment, apparatus, and, more serious, books, at a time of rising prices. There may well be a cutback in the upkeep of buildings—the Government must be hoping for a series of mild winters—and there is a real risk, if the growth rate of local authority spending on education is reduced from 6 per cent. to 3 per cent., that some authorities in some areas 'will save on the recruitment of teachers. Already, during the coming year, a number of authorities will not be employing all the on-quota teachers they are allowed, and if even a small number of teachers were to find it less easy to get posts that would have an immediate effect on recruitment to the colleges.
Is this really what the right hon. Gentleman wants? Is this what he came back into the Government to achieve? He just cannot keep out of this. There is strong feeling about the Government talking generally about cutting the growth rate of education without giving local authorities any indication about the cuts to be made. The growth rate, which has been running at about 9 or 10 per cent. a year for at least 10 years, comes largely from population increases, staying on, replacing old schools, salary increases and loan charges, and all of those are inescapable expenditure. Surely it is the right hon. Gentleman's duty to give local authorities some indication of how the Government expect them to meet their difficulties? After all, Section I of the Education Act, 1944 lays on the Secretary of State the duty to secure "the effective execution by local authorities under his control and direction of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area."
I have a great deal of sympathy with ole leading education committee chairman, Alderman Mrs. Fitzpatrick, of the West Riding, who said recently:
It passes my imagination how local authorities are to respond to (the Prime Minister's) extraordinary admonition—that they should absorb all the consequences of devaluation, maintain the quality of the service undiminished and yet contain their expenditure within a figure determined before all these dramatic developments occurred.
That puts it extremely well.
In the debate on the cuts the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary said:
One could have looked all round the educational sphere and said, Scrape a bit off here, and a bit off there …'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1905.]
Did it not occur to the right hon. Gentleman to warn his colleagues just what these decisions meant for education? Did he fully understand them, for this is exactly what will in fact happen? It will be a case of scraping a bit off here aid a bit off there.
The right hon. Gentleman sometimes takes refuge in saying that the rate support grant is very complicated. I suppose that it is a bit complicated, but its working is as vital to the education service as is the building programme. I do not want to speak at length on this subject, but we should remember also the likely effect of the policy on the Youth Service voluntary organisations—how extremely hard it will be for voluntary bodies to get the scale of even modest assistance which, I know, many people would like them to have.
I want now to refer to the cuts in capitation grants to direct grant schools. As is well known, on this side of the House we support the direct grant system. I should like to see the direct grant list reopened. I have always believed that it is right and proper that a number of schools should stand between the completely independent schools and the completely maintained schools, bat we are not debating the general merits of the direct grant system today. What I want to emphasise is that these schools make an essential contribution to public education in many parts of the country, especially in some northern areas with large Catholic populations. There simply would not be enough places it. maintained schools for all the pupils for whom provision would have to be

made, and the cut in capitation grants simply means an extra burden on the local authorities of about £1·2 million.

Mr. Christopher Price: How can the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, who are constantly calling for a selective approach to aid from the taxpayer to individuals, possibly justify this flat-rate benefit which goes almost exclusively to better-off families?

Sir E. Boyle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the income scale on which parents pay for places in direct grant schools is selective. The hon. Gentleman has not really got the principal point with which I was concerned, which is the burden on local authorities. The hon. Gentleman seems to fall into the error, about which I think the Secretary-General of the N.U.T. had something to say the other day, of supposing that this is primarily an anti-middle class move by the Government. It is, in fact, primarily a move which will put an extra burden on local education authorities.
I will not say much about the capital programme of the universities. I recognise that they come off rather lightly. But they had a severe cut in 1965, and I am quite clear that there is building up in the universities a severe problem of obsolescence, particularly in the older civic universities. On students grants, I would like to say a word about the decision to limit the increase in September, 1968, to half the sum required fully to reflect the increase in the cost of living since 1965. So far, the leaders of students have shown a responsible attitude to this matter, and the House should acknowledge this. We need to remember that books are going up in price, and so are charges in halls of residence. In London, the charges are likely to go up by £40.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman-man w ill be able to confirm that he will abide by the findings of Professor A. J. Brown's committee as the basis for the 50 per cent. cut and that he will not become committed to the Treasury for any particular figure before these findings are announced. I must say that I am not happy about this arbitrary and unselective cut, if only for this reason, that whether one wants a more rapid or relatively less rapid rate of university expansion, higher education ought to be


available to every really able student in the country, irrespective of means.
I have set out what seems to me to be an unanswerable case for the view that the Government cuts are educationally damaging and disproportionate in relation to the economy measures as a whole. What is more, as the Motion also says, the priorities here are quite wrong. I said recently in the North of England:
What we need at the present time is a radical reappraisal of all existing policies, and ruthless selectivity in the national interest, about what should expand and what should contract. The Government should aim to protect those forms of investment and expenditure which encourage growth and efficiency, while cutting down on those which absorb scarce resources to no good purpose, and on indiscriminate subsidies to consumption.
I believe that public opinion would have accepted a further charge in school meals for those who could afford it—it could have been introduced by stages. On the subject of university staffing, I believe that the staff-student ratio has not only changed in recent years, but it has, if anything, become slightly more favourable. At a time of very rapid expansion it is natural that the world of higher education, especially universities, should consume a very considerable proportion of its own product. Yet I believe a change in the staff-student ratio, from its present figure of 1:7 to a figure of 1:8 would not he unreasonable. If it were carried out that over a period it would involve an annual saving of £10 million a year. And it would surely be much better to cut down, as we said in a recent debate, the swollen bureaucracy of this country than risk local authorities going slow on the employment of teachers.
Lastly, I hope, as I think many do, that during the coming months the Minister will show a rather more positive enthusiasm for something. I would make certain suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman. No one expects him to accept all the costly recommendations in the Plowden Report, but let him display real enthusiasm to co-operate in full with those in the universities who want to carry out pilot projects in the educational priority areas. Let him also devote increased attention—and I believe that he will get co-operation from authorities—to in-service training. I press this because when I speak to bodies like members of

the Joint Four, I find that there are more questions about in-service training —more desire to know about the best existing practice—than on anything else. A communication from the right hon. Gentleman to authorities, drawing on the best existing experience from counties like Kent, would be a good deal more popular than more documents on the lines of Circular 6/68.
There is also the question of how to get more productivity out of our existing plant. These things are more worthwhile than for the right hon. Gentleman to tell chief education officers, as he did the other night:
There will be some pluses and minuses in the local arithmetic.
I really feel that that conclusion was hardly worthy of the occasion.
No one would pretend that the Minister has an easy job. I have been Minister and I know of the difficulties, I hope, of the right hon. Gentleman's position. But however much one speaks of Cabinet decisions, the right hon. Gentleman is the responsible Minister. He is the leader of what I believe to be one of the finest public services in the world.
Those who serve in education do not expect their Minister always to win, but surely they are entitled to expect two things: that he fights, and ensures that if education cannot always come off best, at least it never comes off worst. It is by reference to this test that we on this side believe that both the right hon. Gentleman and the Government deserve the censure of this House.

4.26 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): I should like to ask the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) one question on a point about which I was not clear in his speech. I was not sure whether he was proposing that we should cut the universities' quinquennial grant, which has just been announced. I though that this was what he was proposing. We decided very deliberately not to do this, and we have just announced it. It would be a very severe cut indeed on the universities if he proposed to do that, and I hope that he will make it clear so that everyone will know where the two parties stand on this.
It is inevitable and natural, with our Parliamentary procedure, that we should discuss separately and in isolation from one another, the economies announced by the Government in a number of areas. Today in this way we are discussing the measures in regard to education. This makes it all the more important, as a background to the debate, to keep these particular separate measures in perspective. We must consider them as part and parcel of the package as a whole. This the right hon. Gentleman signally failed to do. He was talking as if one could make this amount of economy, that amount of economy, cut this away and not that.
What he ignored, and what we cannot ignore, if we are to approach this problem responsibly, is that the purpose of the whole package, of which education is a part, is to help make devaluation work. It is not, taken as a whole, too large for this purpose. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that he will have to take further measures in his Budget. The package, including the education savings, helps to make devaluation work in two broad ways. First it helps to release resources for export, import savings and investment. Secondly, it helps to reduce the burden on the Budget.
It we did not succeed in making devaluation work—and this was a point which the right hon. Gentleman did not put to himself or the House—we would as a nation be facing a very bleak future, and we would be missing what may be our last chance of achieving steady and balanced growth, and a further expansion of our social services, including education, which both he and I want. These things would be in risk and jeopardy.
Of course, I would have liked it if education could have been spared, but it was impossible for education, which is a very costly and rapidly expanding service, to escape a contribution to the savings that we had to make. Since the total of these savings cannot be reduced, any responsible person who criticises any of them has an obligation to propose saving, of a corresponding size elsewhere. The Opposition have a particular responsibility to do so because—what was not mentioned today—they have rejected all the defence savings.
They really have to make massive proposals for alternative savings and this they have singularly and irresponsibly so far failed to do. The only alternative proposals of any importance made by the Opposition is that the cost of school meals should have been further increased. They are much too optimistic about the yield from this. Even assuming, which I gravely doubt, that it would have been a wise economic move, the arithmetic is complicated and there is room for argument about the assumptions on which it rests.
The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. fain Macleod) was wildly out in the figures he gave in a T.V. discussion which we recently had together. He implied that an increase to 2s. from the 1s. 6d. charge which is to come into force next summer term would yield £25 million. He overlooked two factors. The first is that, if we increase the charge from 1s. 6d. to 2s., we cause a bigger fall in demand for the meal than if we increase the charge from 1s. to 1s. 6d. As a result, one loses more income from dinner charges, and so one's net saving from the second 6d. is less than from the first one. Secondly, if there is a fall in demand, one's overheads do not immediately fall in step it takes time to adjust to the new situation.
Our sums, which balance all these factors together, were carefully worked out from the best knowledge accumulated over many years. We estimate that an increase in the charge for meals by a further 6d.—from 1s. 6d. to 2s.—would yield £13 million in 1968–69 and £14 million in 1969–70 in England and Wales. Even making no allowance for a further falloff in demand, an increase from 1s. 6d. to 2s. would result in a saving of much less than the right hon. Member's wild shot of £25 million.
The Opposition Motion alleges that the savings in education are disproportionate to the economy measures as a whole. This point was not elaborated by the right hon. Gentleman.
I do not think any fair-minded person, who is not straining for party advantage, could claim this. Let us now look at the facts. The education economies amount to 2 per cent. in 1968–69 and 2½ per cent. in 1969–70 of the totals previously planned. The corresponding figures for


roads are 8½ per cent. and 10 per cent. and for housing 2½ per cent. and 5 per cent. In making their charge about disproportionate burdens falling on education, the Opposition overlook two things. First, expenditure on social security could only have been reduced by actually cutting the present rates of benefit. Secondly they wholly ignore the fact that the defence cuts do not occur on any great scale until 1970–71 and after. When these are brought into account, the education savings form a considerably smaller proportion of the total savings.
The Opposition Motion also claims that the cuts are educationally damaging. The right hon. Gentleman did develop this part of the argument. This is a false formulation. It overlooks the need, and the right hon. Gentleman had to overlook this to argue radically, to have a package of a certain size. The right approach to ask is whether the necessary savings are as little damaging as possible. This we have tried to secure. As far as possible, given the size of the necessary savings, we have avoided cutting into the structure of education. As far as possible, we have restrained the growth of expenditure in ways that will enable us as quickly as possible to resume our advance.
Let me now look at the more important economies in detail, and I will come to many points raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir E. Boyle: Did the hon. Gentleman say the figure of 2 per cent.? If so, I am puzzled as to how he got that. The total educational reduction over the two years for 1968–69 and 1969–70 made in the White Paper was £97 million out of a total of £716 million. I was not clear about the basis of the calculations.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I have not got all the figures with me and I cannot work out percentages in my head. I cannot do experimental arithmetic in my head, assuming the right hon. Gentleman's sums are right. It is nothing like 13 per cent. I am sure my sums are right, just as I was sure I was right when I had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West with his arithmetic. I will ask my right hon. Friend to deal with this later.
I promised the other day at Question Time to give the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Handsworth, the cost that would fall on local authorities and he has now worked it out and got it right. About 60,000—that is, 60 per cent.—of the pupils in these 179 schools are paid for by the authorities, so that an increase of fees by about £20 a pupil involves an additional cost on authorities of about £1·2 million in a full year. Authorities will be paying about £140 a year on average for each pupil. This can be compared with the charges paid by a local education authority for a place in a school maintained by another authority. For the current year the figures, which have only recently been agreed, are £164 for each pupil under 16 and £289 for each pupil over 16, compared with the £140 a year they pay on average for a pupil at a direct grant school.
Parents with lower incomes have the whole of their fees remitted, so they are shielded from the increase in fees. To take an example, the full increase in fees will fall on a parent with one child whose gross income exceeds £2,000 a year. It is not unreasonable in times like this, when many school fees are going up, to require parents with this kind of income to pay an increase in fees of £20 a year. They will still be getting a subsidy for each child at a direct grant school of £58 a year. This cannot be described as mean or unfair. There are plenty of parents who would be very glad to have a subsidy of £58 a year for their children at independent schools.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: When considering the additional burden on parents and on the local education authority to make up the fees, is that not going to take into account the increase of about £20 a year which has to be made from next September because of the unrecouped costs arising in the last period since the Burnham scales? The right hon. Gentleman has left that out of account.

Mr. Gordon Walker: That is true and many independent schools have to meet this problem and put up fees, and parents who are fortunate enough to be able to send their children to these schools cannot be shielded altogether. The increase


is not at all disproportionate, and after both these operations there is still a subsidy of £58 per pupil for parents with one child with an income of £2,000 a year. This is not improper, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are making a great deal too much fuss about this. This is perfectly fair today when many people in the country have to make some contribution towards making devaluation work.
I turn next to the reduction in the increase in student grants in September of this year. There will be an increase ii grant, but it will be limited to 50 per cent. of the calculations of the Brown Committee of the effect of the cost of living on student grants. We do not know what the figures will be, though we can make our own guess. We expect to receive the Committee's report in a week or so.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that students are taking a very responsible attitude about this. I think the majority of them recognise that they cannot wholly escape the effect of economies that are filling on so many people. Our system of student support is the most generous in the world. No other country that I know of, pays an automatic grant, to every student admitted by a university, in nearly half the cases covering fees and maintenance. The present cost of student support as a whole is over £130 million in a year.
Recently, I met representatives of the National Union of Students. I told them that I was very willing to consider any proposals which they had for adjustments in the maintenance grant structure, provided they did not increase the total cost of student support. We had a very useful discussion, and they put forward a number of interesting suggestions which my Department will be exploring further with t them. One of the suggestions was for an adjustment of the income scale on which the parents' contribution is determined so as to help students from poorer families —to prevent the effect of this reduction in the recommended grant increase from falling too heavily on certain classes of students.
I come now to the two major factors in our economies on which the right hon. Gentleman rightly concentrated the greater part of his remarks—and they

are inter-related: postponement by two years of raising the school leaving age, and local authority expenditure.
Some people—for example, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) in his Amendment to the Motion—have said that postponing the raising of the school leaving age has some desirable features. It is also said in some quarters that we will be better prepared two years from now to embark on this operation. But this whole line of argument I completely reject. I think that the case for raising the school leaving age—on grounds which the right hon. Gentleman gave, and on other educational, social and demographic grounds—is very strong indeed. I deeply regret the postponement of this reform. I regard it as a setback, a temporary setback, but it is also a present necessity.

Sir Myer Galpern: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can give an assurance that, despite the postponement of the school leaving age, no child voluntarily wishing to continue beyond the age of 15 will be denied the opportunity to do so?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I will come to that point, but I can, of course, give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Since education has to make a contribution of a certain size, any other measure would have done much more harm than this one. Even if we had raised the price of school meals by a further 6d., we would have needed further savings in England and Wales of about £15 million in 1968–69 and rather more in 1969–70. This could have been achieved only by severe cuts in universities or further education, teacher supply, or the basic school building programmes. These are the only things on which we could have achieved savings of that order. The Opposition Motion amounts to a demand for cuts of this kind.
We were determined to avoid such disastrous cuts in the structure of education. Faced by the alternatives before us, the Government concluded that a two-year postponement of raising the school leaving age was the least damaging—I do not say "not damaging "—major reduction in expenditure. It has enabled us to maintain intact the output of teachers and the basic building programme.
I very much hope, as everyone else does, that the rate of voluntary staying on will continue to rise. I estimate that the rate will rise from 48 per cent. this year to between 50 and 55 per cent. by the end of 1969–70. It will be uneven as between different parts of the country.
In some areas, this may create accommodation problems which are more than marginal—in many areas, the effect will be marginal—and I have told authorities which were planning new secondary buildings in the expectation of the raising of the school-leaving age and the establishment of the full five-year course that they need not now revise their plans so long as they are sure that there will be a use for the accommodation up to 1973.
Much concern has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and others about the impact of postponing the raising of the school-leaving age upon plans for comprehensive reorganisation. As the right hon. Gentleman said, a number of local education authorities were, quite properly, planning to use their raising of the school leaving age allocation in order to help carry out their reorganisation plans. It is for this reason—and it was not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—that we are adding £7 million of new starts in England and Wales and £1 million in Scotland in each of the next two years. This money will be used mainly to help maintain the progress of comprehensive reorganisation. I hope also to put some of this extra money into educational priority areas, but I do not know what the proportion will be until I hear from local education authorities about their claims for help. I expect to have these answers in the very near future. I will do my utmost to mitigate any adverse effect that there will be on comprehensive reorganisation.
The authorities which will have first claim on the sum of £8 million for new starts will be those which are committed to the introduction of a comprehensive pattern in the whole or part of their area in 1968 or 1969. I will give particular attention to authorities with a stable or falling population and which therefore have little or no claim on the major building programmes. A number

of outer London boroughs are in this position, and there are authorities in other parts of the country which will be similarly placed.
Local authorities are affected in two main ways by the measures we have announced—first, by the reorganisation of the building programme. Some people, including the right hon. Gentleman, claim that the cut is much bigger than we say because we are not allowing the so-called "backlog to be brought forward into the current year's building programme. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this in The Guardian as well as in other newspapers —and I am not surprised because the terms we use are extremely confusing. I may say that we are now engaged in revising both our methods of terminology.
The backlog is no new thing. People have started talking about it, but we have been living with it for a long time. It has the advantage that it provides a substantial number of projects ready to start right at the beginning of a building year. Normally there is a backlog of some £70 million at the beginning of a year and a backlog of the same value at the end of a year. The same thing will occur again this year and next. But the backlog causes great inconvenience when, as now, a steadily increasing amount of investment has to be levelled off.
If we had not brought under control the start of projects from earlier years' programmes, the savings from postponing raising the school-leaving age might have been wiped out. But if we look at the value of work to be started on the ground next year—and, after all, this is what really matters—there will be no greater reduction than is involved in the decision to postpone raising the school-leaving age—indeed, less because of the £7 million of extra starts.
When we take everything into account —major and minor works, and so on—the building programme for 1968–69 will be practically the same as for this year— £129 million compared with £134 million, the latter sum includes an extra £3 million of minor works which I authorised only a few weeks ago to help development areas and areas of high unemployment.

Sir E. Boyle: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves Circular 6/68, would he say a word about the position of those large authorities which have virtually no backlog?

Mr. Gordon Walker: We are asking all authorities, with or without a backlog, to give us priorities for this year's building. These will be the only things we look at. There have always been authorities with and without backlogs. This is not something new. That was so in the right hon. Gentleman's term of office. He did not distinguish between those with and those without backlogs. He is making a false point.
The second factor affecting local authorities is the restraint in the growth of Rate Support Grant in the next two years. This was absolutely essential. Local authority expenditure on all services has been increasing by 6 to 7 per cent. a year. It will now be reduced to an increase of something like 4 or 5 per cent. in real terms in 1968–69 and of a further 3 per cent. in 1969–70.
This is certainly going to mean a difficult time for the authorities. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about this matter. I have told the associations that they will have to absorb the increased salaries for further education. But we must keep things in proportion. The Government expect local authorities next year to absorb any increases in cost which they cannot avoid by making savings elsewhere. The total savings required may be of the order of £60–70 million. This is less than 3 per cent. of total local authority expenditure of £2,800 million accepted for Exchequer grant in 1968–69. I am giving guidance to local education authorities, but they are independent bodies which have to make up their own minds. They control their own expenditure. Education forms a very large proportion of this expenditure—

Sir E. Boyle: About half.

Mr. Gordon Walker: About half, though it is more in some, and less in others. It cannot expect to escape altogether. I have told local authorities that I want them to preserve the training and recruitment of teachers, at the expense, if necessary, of other parts of the service.
The Opposition Motion would only make sense if it is assumed that local

authority judgment on priorities and on the importance of education will be badly at fault. The Opposition can imply that if they wish, and the right hon. Gentleman came very near to it, but I have more confidence in the wisdom, foresight and sense of responsibility of the authorities.
I think that one reason why the Opposition have jumped in with this Motion is that they hope that it will lead people to forget their own sorry record over education. The right hon. Gentleman praised the Conservative's own record over a decade. However, I will take the last year of it, which is a period in which he said that great things were done.
In 1963–64, the last full year of the Conservative Government, public expenditure on education in Great Britain was £1,354 million. In 1968–69, even after the cuts it will be about £2,000 million, an increase of almost £650 million or nearly 50 per cent. in five years. Within the total, spending on universities and on teacher training will almost double. In 1963–64, the last full year of the Conservative Government, 21,200 students entered colleges of education. In 1967–68, the number was 36,600, an increase of 70 per cent. In 1963–64, 39,500 undergraduates entered the universities, including the colleges of advanced technology. In 1967–68, the number was about 57,000, an increase of nearly 45 per cent.
Quite rightly, the right hon. Gentleman always makes a lot of the need to give increased priority to primary schools, and I agree. Here our record compared with theirs is outstanding. In 1964, 116,000 new places were provided in primary schools. In 1967, the figure was 216,000, an increase of 100,000. The size of junior classes has fallen very significantly. With a record like theirs against a record like ours, the Opposition have a cool cheek in putting down this Motion.
Finally let me cast a glance to the future. Education will continue to expand. Expenditure is planned to rise by 3½ per cent. in real terms in each of the next two years and, in 1969–70, will reach the sum of £2,080 million. This will constitute 14·1 per cent. of total public expenditure. At the moment, education ranks third in public expenditure after social security and defence. In two years' time, it will rank second-ahead of defence. Even during this period of


economy, we shall press ahead with comprehensive reorganisation, and we will spend more than £16 million on educational priority areas. We shall also enlarge the opportunities for higher education beyond anything contemplated in the Robbins Report.
In 1970–71, we shall start on the programme to raise the school leaving age by 1973, and, of course, I give the right hon. Gentleman the pledge for which he asked. It is relevant to point out that 1970–71, the year when we shall start up again, will coincide with the fuller effects of the defence cuts which will release resources and save another burden on the budget.
One earnest of our purpose is that we are maintaining unabated the increasing supply of teachers. This year, there will be a record number of 316,000 qualified teachers in our schools. If we did not intend to raise the school leaving age, the continuing flow of teachers at this rate would be a most extravagant operation.
I am looking urgently at the possibility of a single leaving date. But, as the House will recognise, there are a number of aspects of this problem that have to be taken into account and there are various different Departments involved. One cannot reach a very quick decision. As a result, I cannot yet make a statement, but I hope to be able to before long.
It is true that, in the next two years, we shall not make all the progress that we hoped, though, as I have shown, we shall by no means be standing still, as the right hon. Gentleman implied. We shall advance. The savings in education will help us to right our balance of payments and, once that is achieved, we shall give education its full share of the extra resources.
Anyone with the true interest of education at heart must be sad at the restraints in growth that we have had to impose. But, taking everything into account, including the Conservatives' own shabby record when in office, I confidently invite the House to reject this hypocritical Motion.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: I hope that we shall be realistic in this debate.
As far as I am concerned, it is a debate on cuts in education and the consequences of them. We are not debating the merits or demerits of the Government's economic policy. I hope that we are debating education. Certainly I shall try to do that. Nor are we debating the blameworthiness of their side, and I deplore the parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which were purely party political.

Mr. David Winnick: Which one?

Mr. Jennings: I expected something greater from the right hon. Gentleman today. I shall have more to say about my right hon. Friend's speech in a moment.
In the light of present conditions, we have to be realistic. It is no good moaning about the past. We have to look at the present and the future. In view of the cuts which have now been established by the statements of the Government, the question is how we can do the least harm to the educational service in the framework of those inevitable cuts. The basis of the whole problem is one of priorities. Having accepted the cuts, we must look at the consequences of them and consider what plans we have to deal with the service in the framework of them.
At the outset, I want to refer to the Motion which is before us. I agree with a large part of it. Certainly I agree with the first reason given, which refers to the cuts as being "educationally damaging". I agree, too, with the last reason, which describes them as being
disproportionate in relation to the economy measures as a whole.
It is the middle portion of the Motion —

Mr. A. Woodburn: The meat in the sandwich.

Mr. Jennings: The meat in the sandwich. It is the middle portion of the Motion that rather puzzles —
… based on a wrong choice of priorities … ".
Priorities of what and for what? Does the word "priorities" mean priorities in the whole economic cut cake, if I may use that phrase, or does it mean priorities in the cuts in the education service? Does


it mean one or the other or a combination of both?
My mind is clear about the meaning of the Motion, particularly the part to which I have referred. I have almost parsed and analysed the Motion. It regrets that
the education service should have been subjected to cuts … based on a wrong choice of priorities …".
In other words, the cuts in education are based on a wrong system of priorities.
This brings me to my first theme, namely, the question of priorities. In an intervention during the debate on the cuts about a fortnight ago, I declared quite unashamedly that I believed that if these cuts had to be made—it is obvious they have to be made in the light of economic circumstances—the Government were absolutely right in the choice of their first priority: the deferment of the school leaving age. Nothing that has happened since or been said to me by many people has caused me to change my mind.
I also said in the debate—it is a theme that I have pursued over many years in the House on many occasions—that the first priority in the education service is to put our primary schools right. Raising the school leaving age is well down the list of priorities until the base of the pyramid has been put right.
Some people say that a lot has been done for primary education, as in other sectors of education. I agree that tremendous improvements have been made. However, there are serious differentials which need to be put right. Can any hon. Member on either side of the House give me any sound educational reason why there should be a differential in the maximum size of classes: 40 for primary schools and 30 for secondary schools? Is there any sound educational reason why the younger the child the less facility it shall have concerning teacher ratio compared with the secondary school child? I cannot see it. I have taught children of all ages. It is as difficult to teach a small child as it is a boy or girl of 16, 17 and 18 years of age. The skills in many cases need to be greater in the first instance than in the second, particularly in infant schools. In using the word "primary" I am including infant schools. Until this is put right I would not agree to an early raising of the school leaving age.
Another differential concerns capitation grants. As a headmaster of an all-in school and then a primary school, I know about the difference in the capitation grants which I received compared with a neighbouring secondary school. They were amazing. The child in the primary school was a Cinderella.
Now buildings and equipment. There were new buildings galore in the secondaries and very little for us in the primaries. I used to look with envy at the equipment that the secondary schools were getting. We were going down on our bended knees for projectors and things like that. I know that things have improved, but we want equality of treatment for primary schools. One has only to go round the country to see the poor state of buildings in primary schools. More has to be done by way of improving poor buildings in primary schools than in any other sector of education.
What was all the fuss about a few months ago concerning salaries? Why did we have strikes—I call them strikes —up and down the country on school meals? It was not a question of school meals; it was a question of salaries. The whole basis of the question was the differential in salaries between primary and secondary school teachers and the lack of opportunities for graded posts and that sort of thing.
There has definitely been secondary development at the expense of the primary sector of education. This leads me to say that in present circumstances this relative situation must now cease. The deferment of the school leaving age is essential. I commend this move, because it fulfils the one criterion that we have to examine. By doing this, in the face of the damaging cuts which have been announced, least harm will be done.
Another differential is teacher supply. If we had raised the school leaving age by 1970, despite what both Front Bench speakers have said, we should have been in great difficulties. I remember very vividly the immediate post-war period when the 1944 Act was brought in and we changed senior schools to secondary moderns without changing the staff or the buildings and without adding one iota of equipment or anything like that. They were suddenly transformed from senior schools to secondary modern schools with increased status. The next few years


were absolute murder in many of them in connection with teaching conditions. We have to be prepared for the raising of the school leaving age with a far more adequate extra supply of teachers than we can envisage in 1970.
I turn to new buildings. It is all very well talking about comprehensive schemes and putting that building with this one and that one, thousands of yards apart, and calling them one unit. If we are supporting a full comprehensive system we need purpose-built comprehensive schools. If this is geared to the raising of the school leaving age we shall need many more new buildings than is envisaged in present programmes. Comprehensive schemes have been geared to the raising of the school-leaving age in many parts of the country, but it would be advisable for them to be deferred in the light of the circumstances to which I have referred. I hope that the Minister will not be so rigid in his approach to the question of comprehensive schemes in view of his own voluntary deferment of the raising of the school leaving age.
I come now to another important aspect. A man, famous in this House and throughout the world, once said, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." What are the tools of teaching; what are the tools of education? Books. No matter what modern method we have in schools, we cannot do without books. Many of the modern methods are old methods in disguise under new names, whether they are called group teaching or ability grouping and so on. Many of these methods have been practised. I see hon. Members opposite who have had experience of teaching in schools agree with me. They have come out under new names. Whatever the new methods and techniques are, we cannot do without books.
What will the cuts mean with respect to books? First, they will lead to a reduction in the supply of books for both classrooms and school libraries. I accept that over the last 15 years there has been a steady improvement in the supply of school books. This has Keen due to a large extent to the setting up in 1954 of a Joint Working Party of the National Book League and the Association of Education Committees to consider the question of school book allowance, and

to set out, as far as it could, appropriate standards for capitation grant for children of various ages. Many local authorities have taken advantage of the advice which has been given to them, with the result that there has been considerable improvement in the supply of books. But in the last report, that in March, 1965, the working party made certain further recommendations, and it estimated that between March, 1965 and the end of this year, through natural causes, and the unnatural cause of devaluation, the price of books will have risen by 25 per cent.
Let us consider that figure in the light of the cuts which have been made. The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, say that he is not responsible for the allocation of money for various priorities within a local authority area, that this is the job of the local education authority. What I am asking him to do is to ensure, by using his influence, by giving advice, and by the pressure that he can exert—and he has exerted pressure in other directions—that this matter is kept in perspective. If the present estimates for book allowances do not include an increase of 25 per cent., there will be a falling-off in the purchase of books by schools. Even with such an increase it will mean merely that the present position is being held. If ever something deserved priority, this is it, because books are the tools of education, and any cuts in the book allowance will add to the possibilities of disaster occurring.
It is against that background, first of the economic situation, secondly of the essential needs of primary education, and thirdly against the problem of book allowances, that we have to consider the priority of raising the school-leaving age. There is only one conclusion to which I can come. The Minister is right in not making it his No. 1 priority.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) knows that I despair of converting him, and my right hon. Friend knows equally well that I regard the postponement of the school-leaving age as both unfortunate and unacceptable.
It seems to me that this criticism is not mitigated, but rather accentuated, by


the considerable progress which the Government have made in education. The fact that in spite of the cuts public expenditure on education will top the £2,000 million mark this year, and that it will increase by £83 million in 1969–70, highlights the massive resources which we are devoting to education, and pinpoints the folly of this economy and the effect that it will have on education.
As I have said before, I could have understood this postponement if the Government had had any doubts about achieving their target, but it is very much to their credit that this is not so. We have reached half-way—indeed, we are past the point of no return—and only a few months ago my right hon. Friend assured the House that he was satisfied that preparations were going ahead very well.
The school building programme is well within our capacity, but the programme which escaped unscathed from the July, 1965, measures is now to be badly disrupted.
We were also reassured about teachers. We were told that there were 95,000 students in the colleges of education, and this, again, is something of which we are entitled to be proud. We were told that we had increased the number of students by 30,000 in the last three years, and we were assured that in 1971–72 we would both raise the school-leaving age, and go some way towards dealing with the problem of the chronic shortage of teachers.
I know that some educationists have doubts about the curriculum, but we were reassured, and we received a satisfactory progress report from the Government. Indeed—and let us take credit for this—I doubt very much whether any major educational reform has been so well-planned. I doubt, too, whether there was any occasion when there was less excuse for hesitancy. Think of the last occasion.
The school-leaving age was last raised in 1947. The Labour Government did it against great odds. They had the courage and resolution to carry through their plans, and I very much regret that they have not been equally resolute on this occasion. Today very educationist recognises that the Government were right to raise the school-leaving age when

they did, and I am convinced that in future most educationists will recognise that the present action is short-sighted, and a wanton economy.
The timing of this postponement could not be more disruptive. After all, the children who should have reaped the benefit of raising the school-leaving age have entered the secondary schools. The teachers are already taking their courses in preparation for it at the colleges of education. The three-year school building programme for 1967–70 is in operation and is gathering steam. This programme was manageable, and now, in spite of what my right hon. Friend said, it will suffer unduly harshly.
I shall not go into the argument about the backlog, but I emphasise that what really matters is completions. In the past I have told Lord Eccles, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle), and now I tell my right hon. Friend, that what matters is not approvals, but completions. Anyone can give approval. What really matters is completions—new schools with children being taught in them—and since 1964 the number of schools completed has steadily declined.
It is always difficult to know which figures to select, but I have selected the figures for all projects. In 1964, the value of projects completed was £131 million. In 1965 it was £123 million, and in 1966 it was £121 million. Although the figures are not yet complete, we know that there was a further decline last year.
If we look at the corresponding figures for new places, and if we look, as we ought to in this context, at secondary schools, and if, in fairness, we consider all the projects providing new places—and this includes hutted accommodation —we see that in 1964 we provided 162,000 places; in 1965 we provided 132,000 places, that is 30,000 fewer; in 1966 we provided 106,000 places, that is about 60,000 fewer; and the figure for 1967 will show a further decline. At the same time, we should remember that the average for 1956–60 was not 106,000, but 157,000. We all know the reason for this. It was due largely to the fact that the Department recognised the increase in the birthrate so late in the day. The schools were already engulfed by the bulge, and the only thing that we could


try to do was to cope with secondary education.
These figures are crucial, because they demonstrate two priorities. In the present situation, the first is that we should not concentrate on approvals. Our first concern should not be economy. What we should be determined to do is speed completions to ensure that we make the most efficient and economical use of the resources devoted to school building. Second, the figures which I gave about secondary schools clearly show that, having invested so much and devoted such sustained energy to the provision of secondary accommodation and brought the goal so close within our grasp, the top educational priority is to finish the job and raise the school leaving age.
This includes the provision of comprehensive secondary education. I recognise what my right hon. Friend has done in the provision of £7 million by way of offset, but the first casualty of all this is undoubtedly comprehensive secondary education.
I have been looking at figures for the school building programme in the North-East, which is now being revised. Every secondary school save one is designated a comprehensive one and that programme cannot be cut—as it is being cut—without prejudicing comprehensive secondary education. Our attention has already been drawn to this. I agree with Sir William Alexander that this means generally, that improvements go and we are back where we were, with the old "roofs over heads" policy.
Quite apart from this, to try to introduce a major reappraisal for the midterm of a three-year programme, not surprisingly, has brought a great deal of confusion and chaos, which is not only infuriating and exasperating: in the longer term, it is outrageously expensive. No economy is more wasteful than the disruption of well-devised, long-term programmes already well under way. From every point of view, this is a regrettable decision.
No case for an educational reform has ever been more effectively argued than that presented by the Crowther Report. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth said, this was given first priority by the Newsom Report, but I

would remind the House that, when the previous Government undertook to raise the school leaving age, they did so after having given general acceptance to the Robbins Report. But the Robbins Report, particularly the famous Appendix One, is a conclusive reaffirmation of Crowther. As I then said, if we accept Robbins, we must inevitably accept Crowther. If we accept Robbins, we cannot tolerate for one avoidable moment the deep ditch which runs across education at the age of 15.
Once again, the Government have an impressive record in implementing the Robbins Report, but we cannot greatly increase expenditure on university education without stopping the waste of talent among working-class children. This applies not only to higher education. We talk about the shortage of scientists and technologists, but there is an even greater shortage of technicians. The real source of technicians lies in decent and adequate secondary education.
Contrary to what my right hon. Friend said, this decision of the Government will do wilful economic damage. It is nonsense to talk about restructuring the economy, if we do not put all our energies into providing the necessary level of secondary education. We have only to look at Continental experience to be convinced of that. On the last occasion, I mentioned the unfairness and inequity, educationally, between the development areas and other parts of the country. Since then, the Minister of State has given me the figures. The percentage of children staying on after school leaving age is 36 per cent. in the Northern region, much less in parts of the region, and 57 per cent. in the South-East, and much more in parts of the South-East.
If we want to help the development areas, one of the most effective ways would be by removing this disparity by raising the school leaving age. On the other hand, in the South-East, with about 60 per cent. of the children already staying on at school, it is a waste of resources not to raise the school leaving age. We must remember, as Crowther said, that it is the very children who should be in school who leave—

Mr. John Wells: What is the source of the figures of 36 per cent. and 57 per cent. which the right hon. Gentleman quoted?

Mr. Willey: They were given last week; the hon. Gentleman will see them in HANSARD.
I regard this as a thoroughly bad decision. I do not argue that there should be no cuts in educational expenditure. In a way, this is an easy option. There will be no consumer lobby pressuring the Minister, and I am sure that a few fainthearted, sorely-tried people in the Department threw their hats in the air when they heard the decision. But cuts in public expenditure must be planned and they need as much sophistication and refinement as any other planning. What seems to me the trouble with the Government is that they too frequently plan with a chopper or a bargepole.
If we are worried about our economic difficulties, this decision, basically, can only aggravate them. It is an awful pity that there should be this blot on the record of a massive Government achievement in education. It is true that it is only a postponement, but the Crowther Report exposed the stupidity of this particular postponement. It is true that this is only a deferment for two years, but this weakens the Government's case. This is an avoidable economy and one which, I am sure, the Government themselves, only too soon, will regret.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Richard Hornby: I am particularly glad to follow the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) because one of his points was the disparity of standards between the North-East, for which he speaks, and the South-East, part of which I represent. This is a very real point, perhaps the most important in the arguments about the raising of the school leaving age. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) said, if we are to try to make sense of regional policies and to make some of the more depressed areas more attractive to industry and more productive of skilled work and skilled workers, this is a very real component of the deal which we want for those areas.
I found three points in the Secretary of State's speech extremely hard to swallow. He said that the purpose of all these economic measures was to make devaluation work. Of course, it is the point of these measures, affecting education or anything else, but what we have

before us in education policy is singularly ill-designed to do so either in the short or in the long term. Second, he said that, if we were to discard the educational cut-backs we might well have to turn to other sectors of welfare, and that, if we did, we would be forced to cuts in benefits rather than what he called a slower rate of expansion in education. I disagree with that argument because the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister have put before the country measures which will add up to cuts in educational benefits. I will come to that later.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to give higher priority in his speech to secondary re-organisation than to the educational priority areas. His remarks on this score were somewhat vague, and I hope that I am not misrepresenting him. At the top of the list of priorities in education should come the primary schools in the educational priority areas, but I did not get the impression from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that that is his view.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth gave a broad picture of the education scene as we consider it to be affected by recent Government decisions. I wish to look more closely at the effects these decisions will have on local education authorities, which must adjust to them, and, in doing so, I will illustrate my argument with some figures which I have obtained from my authority in the County of Kent.
Kent will have to make certain savings as a result of the Government's decisions. The postponement of the decision to increase the school leaving age will save the county about £105,000 and the school milk decision will save it about £74,000, £179,000 in all. Against that, one must place the increased National Insurance contributions, and that reduces the overall figure of savings by about £27,000. Against it one must also place the increased cost of direct grant school places, representing another £6,600. Against the total figure must also be placed the increase that will occur in the cost of the school meals service—arising out of devaluation and increased prices—and this is estimated to cost no less than £255,000 a year.
Thus, even looking at this immediate balance sheet, we cannot achieve what, on


the face of it, appeared to be a saving of £179,000. Instead, we have an immediate increase in costs for this local authority of about £110,000. I have not yet added the salary award to which local authorities are committed in the further education sphere—£145,000—and presumably some amounts later in the year for student awards. Local authorities must take these additional expenses into account, meaning that their expenditure is not being curtailed but must inevitably rise.
The Government say that local authority expenditure must not rise by more than 3 per cent, above 1968–69 levels in real terms and that the proposition for rate support will be on that basis. This must inevitably mean a reduction in benefits and standards to local education authorities—that is, unless one of two alternatives, which I shall describe, is followed. Kent is no exception in this matter. On average, it seems that, to maintain the standard of the existing services without any increases—no change in the size of classes and nothing else being added to the bill—will require an increase in expenditure of about 6 per cent, a year, although the Government are proposing an increase of only 3 per cent.
If the Government accept this argument, they are then in duty bound to make this known and not try to shuffle this responsibility on to the shoulders of local education authorities which, at the end of the day, will be blamed for this policy. As I explained, the situation in Kent is that, allowing for no changes whatever in standards and taking no increases into account—we cannot estimate the increase in the school meals service more than about one year ahead—and allowing for only the growth in the school population, the picture for this one authority, which is not untypical, is as I have described.
Local authorities face this position for reasons which are well known; salary increments, which are based on an agreed scale—and 1 have not heard hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that teachers are overpaid—and the fact that teachers and equipment must be provided for the growing school population—and I have not heard hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that classes are too small. Precisely the reverse is the truth. Consider-

able loan charges for buildings already under construction to cater for the increased school population have made the picture even worse.
For these reasons, the Minister must accept that the Government's latest policy decisions must mean a decline in educational standards or, alternatively, a substantial increase in rates, or a mixture of both. Do the Government foresee such a state of affairs? The position should be made clear on all these matters so that the country in general, and local education authorities in particular, may know where they stand.
Where do the Government stand on these priorities? There are only two ways of looking at it—both are important—the priorities within the education service, and the priorities between one Department and another. From the education service point of view, I cannot see why there should not have been a larger nibble at the school meals budget. Nor do I see why the University of the Air could not be prised away from the bosom of the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, the right hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Jennie Lee).
I would prefer to have seen a cutback in personal expenditure through indirect taxation and a saving on some of the entirely unnecessary costs involved in the Transport Bill which is before the House. That would have been preferable to these cuts in education. We are told that the purpose of these measures is to set Britain on its feet and make devaluation work. I cannot see how these measures will help us to do that. They will merely add up to a worsening of standards in education generally, when it is on those standards that we look for our professional skills and the supply of trained workers. They will also increase the strains on further education, and with the industrial training legislation coming into force, more of the resources of the nation will be needed there and extra costs and pressure will be placed on local authority budgets. They are likely to discourage the recruitment of part-time teachers, who have begun to play a real part. The teachers' salary budget will not escape the stresses and strains being placed on local authorities, adding up, as it does, to more than 60 per cent. of the total.
Unless the Government let the recruitment of teachers go forward, they are likely to enlarge, not reduce, the size of classes and waste work on many aspects of secondary reorganisation—a sad epitaph on what they have said in the past. If salaries are exempt, it will mean a particularly heavy burden on the one-third of the educational budget outside the salary bracket.
We used to hear a great many Galbraithian phrases about private affluence and public squalor, and the need to look after the public sector. The fact is that we now have what is, perhaps, the most important part of the public sector being hit very hard, and hit in a way that is likely to damage the personal future of the children and the productive capacity of the nation, which is what all these measures are about.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Stan Newens (Epping): The case advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) was impressive in many respects. I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity, and I share many of his sentiments. I am very deeply disappointed and utterly dismayed by many of the cuts being made, and I speak as a teacher, a member of the National Union of Teachers, and a speaker over a quite considerable period at meetings organised by what is now the Council for Educational Advance and various associations for the advancement of State education.
Their back bench speakers have made it clear that the Opposition are not against all cuts in education but argue that the cuts have shown a wrong choice of priorities. The Opposition have been continually calling for cuts in Government expenditure, but they have made it perfectly clear that they do not support the Government's cuts—inadequate as I think they are—in the defence programme. They must be honest and frank, and recognise that if their policies were carried out over the whole arena they would inevitably mean cuts in education, and probably very much heavier cuts than those to which the Government have had recourse.
What would the Opposition cut? The right hon. Gentleman quoted a parent who said that he would rather have faced up to charges for books and a higher price for school meals. Conservatives in the

country have spoken about cutting out school milk altogether. A number of people have in the past flown a kite about introducing a system of loans for students, instead of grants. We also heard about money that ought to be allocated to comprehensive reorganisation. The Opposition must clearly state whether they would permit rate expenditure to rise. or whether they support the Government's decision to freeze the general grant for 1968–69 and restrict its increase to 3 per cent. during the following year. The Opposition must also make clear their attitude to teachers' salaries. Their record here before 1964 was not a shining one in the eyes of many teachers. I was then personally at the receiving end.
I consider that the Opposition case is based on opportunism. They are taking advantage of a particular situation, and I can only say that their Motion represents a Parliamentary sally in the gentle art of hypocrisy—

Mr. James Hamilton (Bothwell): To underline my hon. Friend's point about the Opposition's hypocrisy, may I ask him whether he knows—this is a United Kingdom debate—that when the party opposite was in Government we had teachers on strike in Scotland?

Mr. Newens: I am aware of the attitude of Conservative Governments to teachers in Scotland, as elsewhere.
The hon. Members for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) and Burton (Mr. Jennings) have clearly shown that the Opposition are completely split on the school leaving age. As I listened to the hon. Member for Burton, I wondered whether there would ever be a time that he would consider right for raising the school-leaving age, and whether the terms he would lay down would ever be obtained—

Mr. Jennings: I thought that I had made perfectly clear to any discerning mind the conditions on which I would favour the raising of the school-leaving age. It was quite simple and straightforward. I said that when the primary school system was put right on the lines I suggested I would be fully in favour of raising the age. I take no ideological exception at all to raising the school leaving age, except on that condition.

Mr. Newens: I suspect that the conditions would never be right for that


advance in the way the hon. Gentleman would wish.
I want to speak as one of the signatories of the Amendment that has not been called, and to reject with complete contempt Opposition endeavours to adopt a stance of rejecting cuts in education when they are not really opposed to all cuts. During the debate on the economic cuts on 17th January I made it clear that I refused to accept the Government's case for social cuts, and that applies particularly to the cut that is being made in investment by deferring the raising of the school leaving age. That decision has been roundly condemned, not only by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), and others of my hon. Friends, but by a tremendously widely-based range of people outside. It seems quite clear that if we are to have the essential basis for improving the productivity and skills of the British working population, we cannot achieve it fully until we have raised the school leaving age to 16.
That applies particularly to the development areas. Those of us who are opposed to inequality cannot suffer to continue and be perpetuated a situation in which the people in the development areas do not have the same rights and opportunities as those living in the more prosperous parts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science made that clear, and I want to quote back to him the words he used when he became Minister. He said:
It cannot be right that children's chances should turn on which part of the country they live in and on the strength of their parents' convictions about the value of a fifth year in secondary school.
He was absolutely right, but for two further years as a result of the deferment, children who will not be returning to school will be denied this for all time. This is something which cannot be put right. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will introduce one school leaving date to prevent the spoiling of the fourth year at secondary schools, but that is not enough.
The deferment will mean cuts in the school building programme. I understood that there were to be cuts of £36 million in 1968–69 and in 1969–70, representing the sum which was to be ear-

marked for buildings necessary for raising the school leaving age. I am confused about the cuts, particularly after the interchange between the right hon. Member for Handsworth and my right hon. Friend on the 2 per cent. and 2½ per cent. cut on today's figures. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it clear now or arrange for his hon. Friend to clarify tonight what those cuts actually mean.

Mr. Gordon Walker: As I said, I could not work out the mental arithmetic on my feet, but I have done it now. I was absolutely right; it is 2 per cent. and 2· per cent. of the planned increase in each of the next two years.

Mr. Newens: I thank my right hon. Friend but it is quite clear that the renewal of secondary schools and primary schools will be held up. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has not decided to cut teacher supply, but we shall have teachers coming out of the colleges without jobs being available for them in certain areas, although it was intended and anticipated that those jobs would be there when the leaving age was raised. It has been said in this debate that in some areas teachers find it difficult to get employment. This situation may spread in future. Once a teacher finds he is unable to obtain employment in teaching he is likely to be lost to the profession and there will be great wastage in that respect.
I am concerned about cuts in other sectors as well as the deferment of raising the school leaving age. I am concerned about the reduction in the university capital programme and reductions in further education, the youth service and public library service. All these cuts will have a very adverse effect on the developments which should be taking place today. I am concerned about the ending of secondary school milk provision. The argument against this is the same as that which I advance against the raising of the price of school meals. At a time when perhaps half a million children are in families which do not receive an income equivalent to Ministry of Social Security standards it is absolutely wrong to raise the price of school meals or abolish school milk. Selectivity will inevitably mean that many children who are in need will not have the benefit of school milk and school meals which could help them to


have a better constitution to face educational and, later, employment responsibilities.

Mr. Hornby: It has been said again and again that hardship cases are to be looked after and provision made for them. He should take that into account.

Mr. Newens: This argument is absolute nonsense. I have been a practical teacher. Many children do not like to tell their teachers that they want to have school meals. Many parents are too proud to apply, and as a result the children suffer. I am against the wholesale tendency to laud the effects of selectivity. Even if we accepted the argument, there would still be those outside the limits who need help.
I am concerned about the limitation on student grants to half the sum required to reflect the increase in cost of living since 1965. Today more students marry when they are young and there are more mature students. As an opponent of the Government's prices and incomes policy, I have argued all the time that it is totally wrong to freeze incomes while prices are bound to rise. This applies very much to student grants. I am opposed to this decision. It will cause considerable hardship to married students who are completely dependent on grants to pursue their education.
I am also deeply opposed to the freezing of the General Grant for the year 1968/69 and limiting it to 3 per cent, in the ensuing year. As the right hon. Member for Handsworth pointed out, this must have a very adverse effect on education. There are many fixed payments such as teachers' salaries and capital repayments, and in order to keep the total rate expenditure down cuts will inevitably have to be made elsewhere. There will inevitably be inroads made into unprotected sectors such as new equipment, the language laboratories and the new methods which we should be encouraging and introducing on an increasing scale into the educational system.
There is a good example of this in Harlow New Town in my area. For some years in Harlow, music classes have been held in various schools for children to attend out of school hours. In the forthcoming year the grant made

for this purpose by Essex County Council is to be cut from £7,500 to £5,000. The effect will be to exclude children under 10 except those of outstanding musical ability. I declare a personal interest because my daughter is attending such a class at present. It is totally wrong that a cut such as this should be made. It will ruin the possibility of capturing the interest of young children in music at a receptive stage in their development and it may be impossible to achieve this later in life.
This cut will add nothing whatever to the export drive. Music teachers no longer employed in their spare time and therefore not paid will not rush off to do a little work on exports. I hope the Secretary of State will recognise that many of these educational services of which this is an example will be cut back as a result of Government policy. It is not merely a question of holding things at a certain level and advancing later; there will be important cuts. The effect of the savings will certainly not help the balance of payments problem as has been argued.
I do not think that there is any justification for reducing expenditure, unless it can be clearly shown that equivalent savings could not be made elsewhere in the defence field, for example, or that these savings will undoubtedly assist the export drive or reduce imports. The educational cuts will represent a serious handicap to future improvements in our efficiency. I therefore much regret the fact that they have been made. I think that the cuts are unnecessary. I think that they represent a severe blow to the educational service and they also, as we say in our Amendment which has not been called, depart from the Labour Party's pledges and election promises.
I deplore the Opposition's attempt to derive political advantage from this situation without making it quite clear that they themselves equally would demand cuts which would hit people throughout the country. I personally an unable to support these cuts, but I would equally strongly oppose cuts which were made on a different basis of priority. For this reason, I hope that all hon. Members on this side of the House, and some hon. Members opposite below the Gangway, will reject the Motion as humbug, because that is what it is. Tory-controlled


local authorities have the opportunity to show their aversion to the cuts and unfortunately, there are too many such authorities at present.
I would not have voted—I would have abstained—if the Opposition had tabled a Motion deploring the decision to defer the raising of the leaving age. They have not done that. We know very well why they have not done so. Therefore, I shall vote against the Tory Motion, because I consider that in any case the record of the Labour Government's expenditure practice compares very favourably with that of the Tories over the years with which we have been dealing.
However, let there be no illusion among my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench about my attitude and that of many of my hon. Friends. We utterly deplore the cuts. They represent a terrible blemish on Labour's record. They ought never to have been made. The sooner the Government recognise that they cannot go on cutting back on these social services and on those sectors of the economy like education, which we as a party fought for years to advance, the better it will be for the country and for the Labour movement.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I do not suppose that I am the only one who found it extremely difficult to follow the reasoning of the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens). He is massively criticial of his Front Bench. He has used phrases which are politically damaging and offensive to those in front of him, yet he is not prepared to do anything about it in the Lobby when the time comes. Having been sharply critical, he will still go sheep-like through the Lobby. If he costs the programme of alternative economies put forward at the right time, which was in the debate on the economy measures generally, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod), he will find that it matches —indeed, some would say exceeds—the
economies suggested by the Government.

Mr. Newens: Is the hon. Member aware that not every hon. Member on this side would agree that it is my custom to go sheep-like through the Lobby? When the cuts as a whole were put before the House, I refused to go sheep-

like, ox-like, or in any other fashion, through the Lobby, and I would certainly adopt the same attitude again if we were voting on the positive issue and not merely on the type of hypocrisy which has been advanced by the Opposition.

Mr. van Straubenzee: On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman's conduct reveals that a month's discipline is very salutary indeed. The Government Chief Whip must be rubbing his hands with delight at the speech that the hon. Gentleman made.
It is very pleasant to welcome the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to our education debates once again. All those of us who were in the Parliament of 1959–64—and I, for reasons which he will appreciate, rather especially—remember his contributions to the debates we then had. The right hon. Gentleman made a thoughtful, though highly critical, speech. He always gives the impression of caring deeply about the service and about the children who are the most important part of it. It is because the Secretary of State, in Cabinet discussions, has not really fought the battle of his service against his colleagues with the heart and vigour one would have expected of a Secretary of State for Education that he is under critical attack today. This is why we hear so many criticisms of him from his own back benches. Indeed, it will be highly refreshing to hear a speech from the Labour benches which is complimentary to the Secretary of State.
I suppose that it is inevitable that the major criticism should centre upon the issue which has attracted the greatest public interest, although I do not think that it is by any means necessarily the most important single issue of itself. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North quite properly said that the postponement of the raising of the leaving age accentuates yet further the difference between broadly, the North and the South of the country, though, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) interjected, it is by no means only a North-South problem. I do not want for a moment to detract from the problems of the type of area that the right hon. Gentleman had in mind, but I believe that it is by no means only the "bad" areas which are having difficulty


because of the Secretary of State's decision. Very real problems are raised by his decision for the so-called "good" areas, also.
I, who am fortunate enough to represent precisely such an area, want to draw briefly to the attention of the House the sort of problem that this brings. I cite, for example, a secondary modern school in my constituency which, like that mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle), although going so far only for a comparatively short time, has achieved a 70 per cent. voluntary stay-on rate. This is not because of the politicians. It is primarily because of the enthusiasm of the teachers.
That raises very real problems. It has been prepared for. The whole school has been geared to the raising of the leaving age on the agreed date. As the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North so wisely said, teacheds have gone enthusiastically on courses. There have been parent-teacher meetings. The whole momentum has been got going for the agreed date.
This has been done against a background of constant sniping criticism of secondary modern schools by hon. Members opposite, who seem to regard the secondary modern as the wastepaper basket of the education system. Some of the most remarkable advances in teaching have been done in that type of school. At such a school in my constituency—Embrook School—the problem of the postponement is, first, psychological, and, second, strictly physical. A few schools have been experimenting with fifth form centres, and I also happen to have one of the experimental schools in my constituency. The increased number of children expected at the school depends on the provision of a fifth form centre.
Because the right hon. Gentleman has postponed raising the school-leaving age, the fifth form centre has gone, at least out of money previously believed to be allocated. I am happy to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman that in this case his bacon has been saved by the local education authority out of minor works—I beg the pardon of the right hon. Lady the Minister of State. That was not meant as a pun. A school of that kind gets perilously close to having to

turn away children who want to stay on after the legal age for leaving.
I do not accept that the school-leaving date has merely been postponed. I believe that a Treasury decision has been taken that it shall be cancelled. There are all the symptoms of such a decision. If one is to make a difficult decision of that nature, one does not announce it as a total cancellation; one does it by degrees, particularly so that with any luck one will not have to announce the total cancellation before the likely date of a General Election.
I remain unshaken in that view and the more protestations I hear, from the Prime Minister at least, the more certain I am that the Treasury has made the decision. All the signs are that the Secretary of State is the Treasury's total prisoner in the matter, and I do not believe that he realises the seriousness of what he has done.
But at least the cancellation by the party opposite, although they do not appreciate it, gives chances for second thoughts. It will rest with us on this side of the House to take those chances, and I hope that we shall use the unwelcome respite to think again about the detailed use of the fifth year. Perhaps we might explore more fully than has been done before alternative forms of full-time education for the kind of child who does not find it easy to enter into more intellectual pursuits, and who might, therefore, positively benefit from a full-time education at a place other than a school. This might go quite a long way to meeting the objections of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who are bothered about the compulsory nature of the fifth year.
But—and I am sorry to have to say this in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), for whose views I have the greatest respect—I do not believe that we shall make sense of a viable secondary course until it includes a completed fifth year. It does not make sense at a time of economic difficulty to make this the priority cut, when almost every other likely competitor would be increasing investment in a service which would give productive possibilities in future years, let alone make a much wider life possible for a very large number of young people.
The Minister referred to the problem of a single school-leaving date, and I was glad that he responded in part to my right hon. Friend's request to give this very serious consideration. The postponement of the raising of the school-leaving age makes a complete fourth year all the more important, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not waste any time. He could get legislation through the House this Session, and it could be operative in the academic year starting September, 1969. He could thereby make a coherent whole for all the children involved in the final fourth year.
Like my right hon. Friend, I am always sorry that we on this side of the House failed to grasp this nettle when, by legislation, we reduced the number of school-leaving dates from three to two. It is well known that the reason at that time was concerted advice from both sides of industry. The T.U.C. was as strongly opposed to a single leaving date as anybody. I well understand the anxiety of those concerned with finding jobs for school leavers over having to do the task once in a year only. But when the dates were reduced to two I made careful inquiries in my constituency, and possibly other hon. Members did so in theirs. I found that those responsible for placing school leavers in jobs did not share the anxieties which seemed to be felt at the centre. Furthermore, I found that many employers instinctively recognised the superior quality of a completed fourth year, and were perfectly prepared to put up with the inconveniences and difficulties associated with one school leaving date. This was most important.
I hope that in her reply the right hon. Lady will at the very least acknowledge that this is a legislatively simple step. I trust that she would not question that it is educationally valuable. It represents a very small investment—and that in part answers the case of the hon. Member for Epping.
I shall be brief, because other hon. Members wish to speak. Like the hon. Member for Epping, I wish to refer to student grants. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend spoke of the very restrained and responsible way in which the leaders of the students' unions throughout the United Kingdom have

responded to the problems now facing them. At a time when it is fashionable simply to shout "London School of Economics ", "Take a pill in Edinburgh ", or one of those catch phrases, about every student, it might be appropriate if the House simply said that it recognised—I hope on both sides—that the vast number of students at all levels of higher education are hard-working and serious men and women, seeking to equip themselves for a useful part in life.
I also regarded it in the post-war years as one of Britain's greatest achievements that she broadened so enormously, out of all recognition, the social base from which such students are drawn, and I am certain that one of the constituent factors in the broadening of that social base has been our system of grants. While I shall not go into detail, I would be prepared to defend many if not all of the aspects of that system, and I remind the House that, on the Secretary of State's own figures, 30 per cent. of the students are on maximum grant, which must, therefore, show that a substantial number of students will be considerably affected by the cut announced in the increase due to the cost of living.
In his statement, the Prime Minister said that the cut would be made for "the time being ". It would be helpful if the right hon. Lady would forecast what she understands by "the time being ". Are we talking about one academic year or does she forecast that it is likely to go on for two? We should also like to clarify other aspects of this matter. It must be said plainly and from these benches that no responsible person today, in the present economic circumstances, could possibly support an increase in real terms in student grants and I hope that the right hon. Lady knows, as I am sure she does, that the students unions are not making any such request.
But the aspect of the negotiations which the right hon. Gentleman is having which is causing anxiety is whether or not—and I think that he in part answered this today—he has already made up his mind on the figure he will allocate for this, or whether he really will follow closely the advice given to him by his Advisory Panel on Grants. As I understood him, the right hon. Gentleman was saying clearly—and I hope that the right hon. Lady will confirm this—that he will


accept what I might loosely call the "Brown figures ". But it would be helpful if the right hon. Lady would be emphatic and clear upon this matter.
We should also be grateful to know when the right hon. Lady expects the report of the Advisory Panel to be made public. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman must see it first in private, and I think that he told the House that he expected to do so within the next week or so. But perhaps the right hon. Lady will tell us when we shall be able to judge the figures ourselves.
I want to be clear that what we are talking about is an increase, found by independent machinery set up by the Secretary of State himself, due to a rise in the cost of living since 1965, and it is that increase which the Government, totally arbitrarily, are proposing to reduce by 50 per cent. It had better be clearly understood that this represents hardship. If it is that the grant figure will go up by about £25 a year, a young man or woman therefore faces not only increases right across the board in common with all but, as my right hon. Friend said, such increases as the £40 rise in hall-of-residence charges in London.
Unless the younger generation in our colleges and other places of higher education are not to become cynical at the way Government in the abstract treats them, they must feel that at least we have an understanding of their problems and have been prepared to discuss and go into the alternative suggestions they have put in a very responsible way.
I suppose that everyone in this Chamber is interested in one aspect or another of education. We should not otherwise be here. But I feel deeply resentful of the economic pass to which we have been brought which makes this debate possible or necessary. I am not questioning the bona fides of hon. Members opposite. I understand the difficulties of a man like the hon. Member for Epping, who has set his hand, perfectly honourably, to promises in his election address and now finds himself having publicly to eat his words in almost every degree. But I deeply resent, on behalf of the service, that the whole economic climate should have been brought to this pass and that it should be necessary for us to discuss these swingeing cuts.
It will take a considerable time to get the momentum going again economically, and there had better be no misunderstanding about that, certainly when we come to the General Election. But I hope and believe that, at least with this party in office, we will be able once again to restore to its rightful leading place as a major candidate for care, thought and expenditure the great education service upon which so much of the future of the nation depends.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: The cuts that are being called cuts amount, in many ways, to not spending as much as we were spending on education and do not amount to cuts in any great degree at all. The big decision is the postponement of the higher school leaving age. I have spoken to hundreds of teachers, not only since the postponement was announced but beforehand when the danger of postponement was evident. The higher school-leaving age has been postponed for economic reasons, but I think it would inevitably have had to be postponed in any case.
I have spoken to many headmasters, and can say that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) is the only teacher I have heard who is not heaving a profound sigh of relief at the postponement. We are told of growing cynicism about politics and politicians. There is no part of the community with more justifiable grounds for harbouring such a notion than the teaching profession. When I have read blue books and have heard Ministerial promises of an adequate number of teachers for the increasing number of children in our schools by 1970, I have been apt to remember a whole series of rosy promises which became, in the event, a dingy grey.
Hundreds of White Papers and Blue Books have been published about the education crisis, but that crisis has been with us for 25 years. To the educationists —not the educators—it has been a fountain of honour from which there has been a rich cascade of O.B.E.s and C.B.E.s in abundance. But, for all their endeavours, we are still left with an education crisis. But it is not a different type of crisis. It is not a subtly transmuted crisis. It is the same brutal


straightforward crisis that has been with us for 25 years. That crisis has been and is the teacher shortage. I have never heard it said, until my hon. Friend the Member for Epping said it, that there is a surplus of teachers in certain areas.
Teaching is a unique profession in that decisions of the utmost importance to its well-being and future are made by individuals who do not practise the craft. It would be considered extraordinary by doctors, dentists and lawyers if their professional lives were ruled by a group of people who did not currently practise medicine, dentistry or law.
Reading the reports issued from the Ministry I am struck by a curious circumstance. It is the Olympian detachment with which educationists view the teacher in the classroom. It hardly surprises me that this is so, because the committees which produce the reports by and large are made up of the scarlet majors of education, the educationists. The only barrier to entry to their club, and it is an insuperable barrier, is that they do not teach flesh and blood children in a three-dimensional classroom. The teacher shortage is the serpent in the educationist's Eden, but he is not daunted by obstacles such as a teacher shortage. He notes it and regrets it and passes on to construct yet another ramshackle theory further to confound the confusion in the classrooms, classrooms which he is reluctant to enter.
The director of education in any large authority is probably the only educationist for whom a large measure of sympathy is due. Daily his task becomes more and more formidable, using desperate expedients, using his excellent administrative know-how to preserve, outwardly at least, a semblance of educational order and bringing succour to hard-pressed headmasters, sometimes robbing St. Peters to pay St. Pauls. But directors are far too close to the real problems of teaching to be indifferent to the sad deficiencies of some of his uncertificated colleagues.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping, said that there would be adequate teachers for the raising of the school-leaving age, one saying almost that there would be too many. They entirely forget the num-

ber of unqualified and uncertificated dilutee teachers. The employment of such people is sweeping a little more educational dirt underneath the carpet. The widespread use of non-qualified persons, the uncertificated teacher or the dilutee, is simply a further blow to the status of the profession whose image has been sadly tarnished during the last 25 years.
Teaching is a profession which attaches to it no mystique, unlike the law. The ordinary man or woman may never have to consult a lawyer in a lifetime and if he does he is confronted with a lot of legal jargon and skill which overawes him. The doctor is the man who eases pain and who may superintend one's deathbed—some doctors may even contrive it. But everybody has been taught and everybody has been to school for at least 10 years. Everyone has watched a teacher sauntering about the classroom, diversifying his professional day with bouts at the blackboard, or sitting somnolent at the desk while the pupils do all the work. That is looking at the man through the wrong end of the telescope.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: Has my hon. Friend ever been in a classroom, or actually had the benefit of a teacher?

Mr. Buchanan: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I am being sarcastic. I am stating the view of the educationist, the view which forgets the hundreds and thousands of education miracles which occur in our schools every year. Unfortunately, far too many of our education administrators—and I was the chairman of an education committee for three years—remember their childhood and try to judge teachers by what they then saw, and they still indulge in the childish concept that teaching is easy.
Their crisis policies are based on the assumption that anybody can teach. The employment of uncertificated teachers, well intentioned though it may be, has a lasting effect on children, and our education system has been bolstered by having so many hundreds of these unqualified people. Too many people take from this the comforting assurance that, no matter how harmful it may be and not matter how hopelessly amateurish the teaching may be and no matter if it is non-existent, they will not be held responsible for the consequences because those


consequences inevitably must be far into the future.
The more that education appears to survive by the use of these ramshackle expendients, he more the public image of the teacher is tarnished by a policy which seems deliberately to underline the worthlessness of his training. The more the intellectual quality of the profession chops, the less will able sixth formers and university students look to it as a possible career.
I humbly submit to my right hon. Friend that if a further inquiry into matters educational is to take place, it should be into the qualifications of many of these educationists, the natural enemy of the educator, who have been so prolific in Government inquiries during the past 20 years. These professional educationists have created a climate of opinion for permissive education which is reflected increasingly in the ever increasing evidence of school-boy insolence, insubordination, violence and sometimes downright thuggery.
This leads me to the second crisis which hinges on the shortage of teachers and the employment of unqualified people. The problem of discipline does not arise in a grammar school, or in a fee-paying school, or in the colleges, as it does in a State secondary school, for the sanction of the "sack" is paramount if a boy does not behave. The threat of dismissal is always over his head. But that does not happen in the State schools and even the rejects from the grammar schools and from the fee-paying schools are sent to the State schools.
The new nostrums and specifics of education have left Eton, Harrow, Winchester, the "prep" schools and the grammar schools of Britain completely untouched. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North used the word "exciting ", the new jargon word of the educationists to whom to innovate is the supreme virtue—novelty is all. Meanwhile, those ancient institutions of which I have spoken proceed unruffled in their troglodyte way, insisting on the old-fashioned skills of reading, writing and arithmetic and even more old-fashioned virtues like accuracy and intellectual stamina.
The gap which was closing between the education of the rich and the poor

is widening and it is widening through the malign activities of educationist cranks and misguided egalitarians who see in the State education system an unlimited field for exploiting yet another education gimmick. The Government could save a great deal of money by eliminating a great many gimmicks. If we are honest, we shall stop playing with this serious matter. There is nothing politically spectacular about steady educational advance.
It does not catch the headlines, but it is vital to our survival as a nation that we proceed on the right lines. On the subject of discipline, one can peruse the White Papers and read the Blue Books very closely, but find little evidence that the "neds" and the louts exist in State schools. Exist they do, in every big urban comprehensive or multilateral school, and they are sufficiently important in the educational scheme of things to be a source of suffering to many teachers and pupils alike and a cause of the flight from teaching and productive of many internal staffing difficulties. What are we to do about this?
One of the causes of discontent has been the absolute failure to import into a State system of education a just and corrective form of discipline, preferably non-corporal. No teacher likes to wallop a youngster, but a form of discipline must come into State schools where the situation, in the secondary schools, is becoming very serious. The grave growth of insubordination is one of the most powerful factors in deterring potential teachers and bringing about resignations. A refusal to examine this point makes absolute nonsense of all one's educational blueprints. To ignore it is not only to leave out the Prince, but the King and Ophelia.
The purpose of discipline is simple. It is to ensure conditions in the classroom which will enable the teacher to impart instruction. Many teachers are unable to do this because of what the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) said, about the classes being too big. Every class has probably two boys who simply will not be disciplined. Although many parents would have no objection, and would like to send their children to a State comprehensive school, even knowing that the comprehensive school is probably better in attainment than the grammar school,


they will still wish to send the child to the grammar school, because that is inevitably based on good discipline, for the reasons that I have stated. If they send their child to the comprehensive school that child will become the butt of the "ned" and the lout.

Mr. James Hamilton: Would my hon. Friend not agree, talking about secondary moderns in England and junior secondaries in Scotland, that there are also "neds" and louts in senior secondary and grammar schools?

Mr. Buchanan: I am talking about comprehensives and grammar schools. My hon. Friend could not have been listening. In the grammar schools, if the "ned" persists in his behaviour he speedily gets the sack. Where does he go? Into the State school, there is no other place. The "ned's" way of life is violence. In the State secondary schools the teacher is denied by law any effective method of ridding the classroom of these squalid nuisances.
If we do not make use of the time given us by this postponement, but introduce legislation to increase the school leaving age without adequate, well-qualified teachers, the "neds' charter" will indeed be complete. When the proposal is implemented, it is essential that qualified, certified teachers are there, and not promised in rosy educational plans for the future. We have many hundreds of thousands of excellent, well-qualified teachers in our State schools. But educational policies over many years have led to the appointment of many who are refugees from other callings, just as educationists are often refugees from the classroom.
The career teacher is vital to the future of our society. Thousands more must be recruited. In addition to doing something about the three matters to which I have referred, may I suggest that such an old-fashioned remedy for helping recruitment as higher salaries is well worth trying. In educational matters, for leadership in policy formation, for expertise in instruction, we should depend more and more upon those who are trained for educational service, committed to it and experienced in its details.
More than any other group of people, we are dependent upon the calibre of

these professional teachers who man our classrooms, both for the approach to excellence in education and the better use of education to attain our national means. This is the one aspect on which I agree that our priorities have gone wrong. Our priorities should be to see that the classrooms are manned with excellent well-qualified people. We should introduce some form of discipline to see that the boy or girl who has no intention of becoming educated, but is simply concerned to disturb the class is eliminated. I urge my right hon. Friend to take note of what I have said, on salaries in particular.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Esmond Wright: May I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan). I share his concern, as anyone representing a Glasgow constituency must, both over the problems to which he has alluded and the grave shortage of teachers. He has, however, neglected one fundamental aspect of the cuts. May I remind the House, not merely of the consequences of these cuts themselves, but all that they provided for. For three years now we have had the "going-back" on the promise of six new universities, a promise held out up to and during the October, 1964, election campaign. The whole atmosphere of encouragement and hope in higher education summed up in the Robbins Report and its appendices has been halted. The Labour Government have delayed and cut the university building programme. In 1965–66 it was £541 million, in 1966–67, £33 million and in 1967–68 £25 million.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State is fully aware of the mood of despair now prevailing in university education. For these totals to which I have referred apply not merely to the existing old-style universities, the 24 to which we used to make reference. They are meant for 44 institutions, for the C.A.T.s and the new foundations which are fiendishly expensive in buildings, equipment, books and staffing.
As Lord James of Rusholme has said, and he is one who can speak with authority:
If this represents a great step forward, what would a step back look like? 
We should remember that the Government have gone back on one fundamental in the Robbins Report and that was that


there was to be a great spectrum of education in which each of the institutions would find its natural place. But now we have the Woolwich doctrine of 1965—the doctrine that there are universities, the so-called autonomous institutions—and there are all the rest in the public sector.
It is imperative that we should notice the decline also in the status of colleges of education. Where are they going in the future? All they have been offered are B.Eds. for a handful of students. I gather that it is the fashion to make reference to one's professional association; I am a member of trade union, as it were, the Association of University Teachers. In Glasgow, I think I am right in saying, we are this year getting perhaps only 65 B.Eds. from what is effectively, in Jordan Hill College of Education, the third university of Glasgow.
It seems to me we have to pay attention to this note of despair, this note of desperation, which is creeping into some university statements. May I refer the House to the last statement of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Glasgow who has just retired from chairing the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and who is therefore one of the senior academic statesmen in these islands.
Speaking of the link between universities and the educational system, he says:
But even where the link does obtain, it has not led the Secretary of State for Education and Science to seek university opinion in any regular way on major educational policies. On the relations of the universities to the other institutions of higher education, for example, where official policy aims at a sharp division between the autonomous universities and the public sector' colleges, the so-called binary system ', the Minister formed and stated his policy first and only consulted the universities later when the policy ran into trouble. The same thing happened with fees for overseas students. As for the major policy on schools, the policy of comprehensive education, the universities have never been consulted in any way whatsoever ".
May I recall the attention of the House to other similar remarks. Here is the Provost of a university college a good deal nearer to this House, Lord Annan, Provost of University College, London, talking about the role of the U.G.C. Writing in the Political Quarterly, he said:
But the U.G.C. will be more an instrument of governmental policy than it has been. Perhaps some form of regional or, more

profitably, complementary grouping will emerge, in which consortia of universities arrange pacts of mutual assistance. Just as the autonomy of the department within the university is now being re-examined and called into question, so that autonomy of universities will be modified by a number of factors: the need to phase building operations, to zone subjects of study, to centre post-graduate study in a particular field in one place rather than in a dozen. All this the U.G.C. is going to have to arrange and direct, and its bureaucratic powers will grow.
I would remind the House that these are the sort of statements coming from universities and which preceded the cuts announced the other week.
I do not entirely join with the hon. Member for Springburn in his views on the postponement of the raising of the school-leaving age. I believe, as almost every speaker in the House has said, that this delay is serious and unfortunate and, I agree with the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that it is "a regrettable decision ". This is not after all a party political point. I thought, as an ex-university teacher, that this country was agreed on the fundamentals for higher education and for university education when it agreed to implement and carry through the 1944 Act. These pledges were repeated in the Crowther report in 1959 and the Newsom Report in 1963.
A point that has not been made thus for is that 1971 was the best year for the raising of the age because in that year the number of 15-year olds, about 650,000, was at the lowest point for a decade. By 1973 it will be 54,000 more than that and if there is this progressive delay and perhaps the total abdication of the policy to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) referred, the difficulties will be still greater. What surprises me is the apparent incapacity of this House to realise that this is a great educational divide, that there are a host of unfilled scientific and technical places in the universities and new institutions which were the colleges of applied technology.
Those places are unfilled because the people are not being trained at the age of 14, 15 and 16 in the schools. So I endorse what the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that this is wilful economic damage. It is treachery to education, not merely in this country but in Europe. Think of the appeals being made


to British universities to form consortia with European universities in various enterprises and watch the parallel development out pacing us immensely in Germany, Japan and of course, in the United States.
I would call the attention of the House, if that is necessary, to the fact that the present Leader of the House, who graced us with his presence for a short time at the beginning of the debate, moved a Motion of censure on the 27th January, 1964 because this party, then the Government, had not introduced the raising of the school-leaving age a good deal earlier. But, as we know, in politics consistency is no longer a virtue.
I will not dwell on the regional variations except to say—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Springburn will say—that what is true of the North of England and the disparity between the South and the North is despairingly truer of Scotland.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: Is the hon. Member suggesting that statistics in Scotland show that there are fewer children who stay on at school and that there are fewer people going to universities and colleges of further education than in the North of England? If I could catch Mr. Speaker's eye tonight I could prove the opposite.

Mr. Wright: It would not be for me to anticipate what the hon. Member would say. The character of higher education in the fifth year—as it is called in Scotland—is so different that parallels are difficult to make.
All I am trying to suggest is that there is a regional economic imbalance. I believe that in the long run these cuts will hurt Scotland, as they are hurting the North of England, far more than the South.
The second point that has not been made yet is the effect of the cut in capitation grant to direct grant schools, though I gather that the hon. Member for Springburn was making indirect reference to this. There are, I think, 179 grammar schools under direct support in England and about 20 others, largely nursery schools; and there are in Scotland 29 direct grant schools. In the earlier part of the debate we were work

ing on this assumption that in England the cut in capitation to the direct-grant schools would be in large part shifted to the local authority. About 60 per cent. of the places in English direct grant schools are paid for by the local education authorities so the net saving is not nearly £2 million, as was said in the middle of January, but is only about £600,000.
The cut in the direct grants to the schools in the North of England and Scotland will hurt Roman Catholic schools appreciably. It will certainly hurt Scottish schools, because the Scottish tradition does not normally link the direct grant schools to the local authority. And where Scotland is concerned, there are not merely the cuts in the capitation grant. I was told in reply to a Question of mine a few days ago that the system is to be changed attaching to the close estimates sent from direct grant schools to the Scottish education department. These are not usually regarded as finally binding but open to later review.
And the assumption in the past has always been that these close estimates do not include the amounts that follow from any increase in teachers' salaries. This has now been cancelled and the close estimate submitted for the 29 direct grant schools in Scotland will have to meet the expected increase in teachers' salaries from April this year. There is thus the embarrassing and certainly totally unique situation in Scotland of having to consider approaching parents to ask for increased fees for the current year as well as the years ahead.

Mr. Christopher Price: The Motion measures the wrong choice of priorities. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that the Scottish direct grant schools, for which 90 per cent. of parents are already able to afford very substantial fees and who can afford this sort of cut, should not be one of the first categories of people to make a contribution to the present situation?

Mr. Wright: I query two things. First, I query the procedure of saying, "In this current year you must find the money ". This comes out also in the attitude to student grants—the fact that this was a decision announced in anticipation of a report which has not yet been produced.
Let me cite one direct-grant school of which I am a governor. The average fee paid by parents and one has to give an average figure because the amount varies a good deal between fees for 5.year-old children and fees for 15-yearold children—is £90 a year. The direct grant from the Scottish Education Department is roughly £40 a year. Therefore, the cost of the child's education in a direct grant school is about £130.
The cost of educating a child in the city schools in Glasgow is £129 a year. The parent is making a contribution of two-thirds of the cost of the education of his child which would otherwise have to be carried by State and United Kingdom money. We are penalising parents who are ready to spend £80, £90, or more of their earnings on the education of their children. I regard both the method and the end of doing this as unfortunate and deplorable.
I come to the third serious aspect of these cuts, and that is the effect on universities. I emphasise not merely the note of depression which obtains in universities, but the fact that the new universities in general for the last three or four years have been gaining appreciably and the older universities have not been gaining pro rata. The universities of Scotland, especially the non-residential universities like Glasgow and Aberdeen, are suffering particularly in what one might call the student pecking order compared with Norwich, Sussex and other bedlams by the sea. The view seems to be that every cathedral town must have a university.
Money is going to the new universities at the expense of the old. Scottish universities are being asked to work on the cheap. I would refer the House to the Estimates Committee Report of July, 1965, to the evidence of the poorer staff-student ratio in Scottish universities to the fact that costs are in general terms appreciably lower, and to the fact that staffing and amenities are that much more difficult to improve. If this series of measures continues very long, there will be a still further drift from the older Scottish universities, which still teach a great number of Scottish students in poor, dilapidated buildings, to the new luxurious institutions to some of which the hon. Member for Springburn referred.
I should like to consider what might be done to deal with this deplorable situation. Can we save anything for the country's sake'? I believe that there are three or four steps which could and should be considered. I should like to ask whichever party forms the Government to ask itself whether British students should not pay more in fees to universities. This would give universities a little more financial autonomy and independence, and that is confirmed by the Robbins Report and the various reports of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors. The cost would be shifted, by and large, to the local authority, but there would be some measure of freedom of manoeuvre in universities which would be of benefit.
I ask the hon. Lady the Minister of State to seek to persuade the Treasury and I realise that its influence over higher education is now indirect rather than direct—to consider a series of tax concessions for donations and endowments to universities on a scale parallel to that in the United States. If one looks through the budgets of any of the big universities in this country, one notices a striking distinction. I think I am right in saying that Glasgow University depends for 72 per cent. of its resources on the State, whereas the University of Virginia, of which I am a graduate, a middle-ranking State university, gets under 40 per cent. from State grants. Here we have something to learn from the United States. Tax concessions to the potential Carnegies, Nuffields, Wolfsons and all the smaller fry—there are a great many alumni in Scottish universities who would welcome this opportunity—would be a constructive step.
Again we cannot for much longer direct universities–44 of them—through the present institutions such as the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and the U.G.C. The time has come to set up local consortia of universities. I should like to see what is still called in Scotland the "Four Courts Committee "—which existed when there were only four universities and members of the Four Courts Committee met every six months. I should like to see such meetings legalised and given regional financial authority. I should like to see infinitely more attention paid to the problem of wastage, especially during the first and second years, in


universities. This could be done without too much expenditure of money.
Something can still be rescued from the chaos which will obtain for the next few years in higher education. I welcome some of the developments of recent years, not least the Schools Council. There is a danger of the Schools Council beginning to produce text books instead of advice to teachers, but it is a healthy development and its work should be strengthened. But there should be many more residential centres at which teachers can continue their in-service training.
I conclude by quoting the words of Professor Macioti, Scientific Secretary of the Delegation of the Commission of European Communities:
This country has the best professors, the best equipment and the best climate for studies in Europe ".
I believe that that is still true. We will have to survive, if we can survive, in educational terms through the grim years ahead. These cuts are a serious threat to what Professor Macioti referred to, but if a constructive effort is made we can perhaps find some solutions which will help us educationally to survive in the grim years ahead.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Wright) will forgive me if I do not delve too far into Scottish affairs. I wish to concentrate my attention on a region very near to his own country, about which I would claim to have some specialised knowledge.
I am very concerned about the waste of potential talent of far too many of our brightest young people, for all sorts of reasons, especially those from working-class families. The Robbins Report, in Appendix 1, Section 2, shows very clearly the social bias in access to higher education in the United Kingdom for children of measured intelligence. The Robbins Committee took the very bright children with I.Qs of 130-plus and found on the basis of the father's occupational social class that 37 per cent.—even that is too small—of the middle-class children went on to a full-time degree course, but only 18 per cent.—about half that figure—of the working-class children of the same high intelligence did so.
This under-attainment of working-class children shows itself in children of somewhat lower intelligence. For example, 6 per cent. of the middle-class children with I.Q.s of 100 to 114 made a degree course, but only 2 per cent. of working-class children in the same intelligence category did so.
It is on this basis that I want to refer to the Northern Region, which has a very high proportion of what might be called working-class families. From figures which I shall quote, I hope to show that the Northern Region is unique and distinct from every other area, including the development areas of the South-West, Wales and Scotland. I assert with regret that there is abundant evidence in those figures, which is not sufficiently realised, even within the Department of Education and Science, that we have in our most educationally backward region a type of intellectual desert in which the academic potential of thousands of relatively bright young people never comes to fruition.
One yardstick is that of university education. In a very helpful letter to me dated 29th December, my right hon. Friend said that, according to Table 23 of the Statistics of Education, Part III, the proportion of school leavers in the Northern Region who proceed to universities is lower than in all the other regions in England and Wales, and he might have included Scotland, although the correspondence does not refer to that country. My right hon. Friend is quite right. If one takes the U.C.C.A. Statistical Supplement and correlates it with figures taken from the Statistics of Education, 1966, Part I, one finds that, although the Northern and Yorkshire Regions combined had 20 per cent. of the school pupils of the whole of the United Kingdom, excluding Scotland, they succeeded in obtaining only 14 per cent. of the university places. Incidentally, within that grouping, the Northern part of it fared rather worse than Yorkshire in this respect.
Plus or minus 1 or 2 per cent., all other regions of the United Kingdom obtained approximately the same ratio of university places to the numbers of pupils in their areas. That is true of the South-West of England, of Wales and, I understand, of Scotland. The only other region which compares at all with the Northern


Region is the North-Western Region, which also has an under-attainment of university places in relation to the number of children in its schools.
Unless we assume that there are special reasons why the North of England, and the North-West, often in the mining areas of Lancashire, do not produce so many bright children, one must then analyse the basic social causes. However, before doing that, one might be led to suppose that, if relatively bright young people are missing the university train, it may be that they are catching the college of further education bus. However, that is not true!
The Statistics of Education, 1965, Part II, Table 17 shows that, of the 18 to 20-year age group in the North, only 18·13 per cent. were in some form of course in a further education college, and that was the lowest percentage of any region in the United Kingdom. If one takes the figure for girls alone, it was catastrophically below that of other regions, with only 10·44 per cent. of girls aged between 18 and 20 in a course at a further education college. From the letter which I received from my right hon. Friend, I understand that the latest figures, which are available to him but not to me, reveal a slight improvement in terms of those at courses at further education colleges. We are, I believe not quite at the bottom of the league table, but we are only one step above it.
All kinds of explanations might be produced by educational theorists and sociologists about these very low northern academic aspirations and achievements. What is fascinating to me is that the areas nearest to the North in terms of the social composition of the population—Wales and Scotland, which are both major development areas—do remarkably better than the North on the kinds of yardstick that I have used. For some historical reason, there has been a far stronger educational tradition in the working-class communities of Scotland and Wales than there has been in the North of England. Educationally speaking, the deficiencies of our class structure in the North have had a more disastrous effect on educational achievement than similar deficiencies in areas such as Wales and Scotland.
According to the tables which I have quoted, taking the number of children

remaining at school in the North beyond the age of 15, the most recent figure supplied to me by the Library was 31·5 per cent. That was the lowest figure in the United Kingdom, and, according to the latest figures available to the Department, it is still the lowest. That compares badly with the 53·2 per cent. in the South-East, the 47·8 per cent. in the South-West, and the 42·4 per cent. in Wales. It makes very sad reading.
Coupled with it, I throw in a further statistic which is very interesting. The percentage of all school leavers from Northern schools with one or two A-level G.C.E. passes is the lowest in the country. Equally, the number of children leaving with five or more O-level passes shows once again that the North has the worst level in the country.

Mr. John Wells: Assuming that I have the same table from the Library, which is somewhat out of date, I think that the hon. Gentleman's figure is wrong. According to the table which I think he is quoting, Bedfordshire shows up as by far the worst county. Following Bedfordshire, Dudley shows up as the worst urban area. Although I go along with the general drift of what he is saying, he must not say that the North is the worst area.

Mr. Rhodes: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I am quoting regional figures. I am not dealing with particular districts within regions. I have checked and rechecked my figures with the help of the Librarian, and I stand by them. Taken as a region, the North is the worst in the country for early school leaving. I do not know which are the worst districts, but, within the North there are far worse areas in terms of early school leaving than in others. For example, in my constituency there is ward where only 9 per cent. of children went to a grammar school or to some other selective form of education until recently.
A flat rate of 30–35 per cent. for the region shows how bad certain mining communities in the North are in terms of early school leaving. In addition, we have the highest pupil-teacher ratio in the country, and the largest number of overcrowded classrooms.
One would immediately concede that the North is a traditional, nineteenth century industrial area. I am glad to say


that new industries are coming in. A high proportion of the population is working class, with long traditions of early school leaving. Because it is different in its response to its industrial environment, in the educational sense, from Scotland and Wales, which are the nearest development areas like it, it presents a unique and distinct region.
In passing, I will mention a very interesting fact. I believe that one of the most effective ways of getting a child into university is to get him into an independent school. I will not go into that argument this evening. There is considerable significance in the fact that of the 309,000 children in England and Wales in independent schools recognised as efficient, no less than 163,000—well above half—are in the South-East Region compared with only 26,000 in the Northern and Yorkshire Regions combined, which is an enormous population area. This may be one reason why there is a relative under-attainment in obtaining university places.
The question I pose is: what should our reaction be if we discover, on the basis of analysis, that one region in the country is the most backward region educationally? I suggest that it requires urgent priority treatment. My complaint—I do not raise it against this Government; I raise it against all Governments over the last 50 years—is that the region never has had priority and it is not getting it now.
On university development, I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Pollok. There has been a concentration of capital for development within the university sector on new universities, presumably to raise them to economic units of operation with a student population which makes them viable. In practice, this means that, the Northern Region not having a new university and with the proposals for the Teesside University being shelved perhaps for the next 10 years, the capital development programme for the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the next five years' period has come to a virtual standstill.
Therefore, the Northern Region, which has all the deficiencies I have mentioned, is lacking capital for university development. I regard this as wrong and as an urgent priority for someone some-

where to recast the university capital development programme to make sure that we get the capital development on the Newcastle site moving more quickly and to change the decision to shelve the foundation of the University of Teesside.
I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), who strongly advocated this, is now on the Front Bench. I know that he cannot now speak, as a Minister, but I am sure he sympathises with what I am saying. The whole region needs this development. One might say, in passing, that if any region suffers more than any other from the decision to postpone the school-leaving age, it must be the very region where there is the maximum early leaving of young people at the present time. This is why I suggest—this may sound a revolutionary suggestion, but I gather there is one precedent in the history of education in this country—that L.E.A.s, on a voluntary basis, should raise the school-leaving age in advance of the postponed date in this one region as part of a crash programme and that the financial wherewithal should be made available to enable them to do it. I have received a considerable number of letters, since making this suggestion, from leading educationists running L.E.A.s in that region and they would be happy to take the initiative.
Concerning student support, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), in Vienna two or three months ago, said that one of the principal reasons why so many working-class youngsters entered universities in this country was because we have the most generous system of student support of practically any of the Western capitalist countries. That is true. But it follows equally from that, that if we hold back increased student grant support to meet the rising cost of living, the people who will be most deterred from entering universities because of the costs of university education will be the working-class communities, and the regions which will suffer most will be those which have the lowest educational attainment at the present time.
I do not make this contribution by way of attack upon my own Government. I do not believe that any Governments in


recent years have been sufficiently conscious of how different the North was from any other region in the country. Nobody has been prepared to argue that the North was different from any other development area. Industrially, the North is not peculiarly different from Scotland and Wales and it should and does have tae same kind of industrial priorities. Many Government Departments are giving priority to the North, but I doubt whether educationally we are giving the degree of priority to the North that will deal with the problem I have mentioned. We have a unique situation and a special problem there. I would like to see more education Ministers devoting more of their tine to visiting these Northern districts. I know that my right hon. Friend has been there recently.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): I live there.

Mr. Rhodes: I am talking now about the Northern Region, not the Yorkshire Region.
In the Northern Region we have a unique 'problem and it is high time that some urgent priority was given to it. I know that this is special pleading, but I suggest I have backed my special pleading with a mass of statistical evidence that shows there is nowhere in the country, including Wales and Scotland, which has quite got our problem. For this reason, those of us who represent northern constituencies, especially those within the North who have a special interest in education, regard some of the cuts which hive had to be made in the advancement of spending as particularly unfortunate for us.
Therefore, we shall go on pressing for the kind of priority that we need to break out of the education situation in which we have lived in the North for the last few generations.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I start by calling the attention of the House to the effect of the cuts on the primary sector of education, because there is no doubt that that sector will be affected.
Before we had the cuts there had already been inadequate action on Plowden. If, for instance, we look at the recom-

mendations regarding the additional incentives to teachers in priority areas, we see that the proposals and the money allocated, even before these cuts, were inadequate.
I am not prepared to compromise on primary education. We cannot sidestep the making of priorities in education. The education service has swallowed vast quantities of this country's increased wealth over the last decade, or more. We cannot go on advancing over a broad front all the time.
My first priority is primary education. The money which was originally allocated to raising the school leaving age should have gone to primary education. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) is not here, because he admitted in the course of his speech that there had been neglect of primary education during the years in which the Conservative Party was responsible. By admitting that, he is saying that there was neglect in the primary sector of education at the time he announced the date for raising the school leaving age. I believe he was wrong to make that announcement. I accept that I have changed my mind on this. It is a great pity that more hon. Members in the House have not changed their minds, too. The primary sector of education is where class barriers are formed, and where attitudes to knowledge and learning and the full life are shaped, and as long as primary children are in classes of more than 30 I shall not view the raising of the school leaving age with any enthusiasm whatever.
What about the school leaving age? I have persistently warned that this postponement would take place. I do not believe it has taken place because of the cuts. It has taken place because it was impossible for this Government to raise it because of lack of preparation. The blame, too, has to be shared by the previous Government, because the programme of research of the Schools Council was not put into operation early enough to change the curriculum. We did not have the teachers; nor do I believe that the buildings would have been there. I have held, and still hold, that the raising of the school leaving age could only have been done if we had diverted resources from other sectors of


education. There are no other sectors of education from which I wish to divert resources for that purpose.
The right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that this was a temporary measure. My purpose is to question the new date. £70 million have been removed from the school building programme between 1968 and 1970 as a result of the postponement of the school-leaving age. This figure would have permitted the construction of buildings to accommodate an extra 350,000 pupils. Do the Government intend to replace this sum of money in 1971–73? If they do, I must tell them that it will be totally inadequate. There will be 56,000 more pupils in 1973 than in 1971. The ordinary school building programme will also have to be increased to cope with the high birthrate after 1955. Even if the school leaving-age is raised, there will be 264,000 more pupils in secondary schools in 1974 than in 1972. Building costs will rise substantially, and in any case the previously allocated amount of £70 million was inadequate.
The total sum of money necessary for additional buildings in order to raise the school-leaving age by 1973 will be £200 million. Unless the Government put back some of the £70 million in 196970, they will have to spend £100 million extra in each of the two years for this purpose. I do not believe that the economy will stand that, and I do not believe that the building industry will stand it, either.
I turn, now, to local education authority expenditure. These authorities will have to increase their current expenditure to cope with this. I estimate that by 1973 the extra cost to them will be about £100 million per annum. How will it be found? It cannot come out of the rates. I believe that the Government must give an answer this evening to this problem. They must assure us that they have adequate plans for financing the school building programme, and also for reorganising the whole structure of local authority financing of education and the contribution local authorities make to it. The Government should immediately call a conference of local education authorities to discuss the implications of 1973.
I have said several times, in the House and elsewhere, that a much better alternative to raising the school-leaving age is compulsory part-time education to the age of 18. I do not advocate this merely as a matter of saving money. I believe that it is educationally and socially better. The overwhelming view among those who leave school at 15 is that they are adults, and that school is for kids. In part-time further education of the kind that I am suggesting they could be treated as adults, and not as kids.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth referred to the Motion in my name and that of some of my hon. Friends. He said that the Crowther Report has gone into the comparative advantages of part-time education and raising the school-leaving age, but I remind him that a great deal of water has passed under the bridge since that Report. We have had the Newsom Report, which said that our school curriculum was totally wrong for these children. I believe that there is now a significant shift of opinion among many educational experts in this country towards the view that part-time education is a better alternative to raising the school-leaving age.

Mr. Christopher Price: For some time I have been trying to understand the Liberal Party's policy on this. Does the hon. Gentleman regard part-time education between whatever the school leaving age is and 18—say 15 to 18—as an alternative to industrial training? If not, how does he see it fitting in with the Industrial Training Act, which is going forward very quickly?

Mr. Pardoe: It would make it easier to bring in compulsory part-time education on a day-release basis up to the age of 18, because many industries are moving in this direction now. This is why I say that it would not be expensive. The Government should now plan for the contingency that they will fail to raise the school-leaving age by 1973, and they should take account of the implications of that failure should it come about.
The Government should encourage parents to keep their children at school on a voluntary basis. One way of doing this is to provide a financial incentive. I do not say that the financial barrier is the only one. but let us at least provide


an answer for that. The Government should follow the suggestion of amalgamating tax allowances and family allowances to give poor parents the encouragement and the wherewithal for their children to stay on at school. They should pay these parents £3 a week within the social security system for every child staying on in full-time education after the present school-leaving age. It is impossible to divorce educational policy from social security policy, or taxation policy.
I propose, now, to say a few words about school meals and milk. The right hon. Gentleman put forward the idea that the only alternative to this policy was to raise the cost of school meals by 6d.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I said that it was the Conservative alternative.

Mr. Pardoe: That is not the only alternative to that proposed by the Government. I am astonished that the Government think the only alternative to free milk is no milk at all. Why not charge a price for milk? Why not amalgamate the price of school meals and milk, and charge it to the parents on their Income Tax return forms? The right hon. Gentleman will find on his flies a detailed letter telling him how he can do this. It will not cost a great deal of money. In fact, it will save him a fortune. This 6d. on the price of milk is not the only alternative. What I have suggested would be simpler administratively, and we would derive far more money from it than by raising the charge for school meals in the way suggested by the Conservative Party.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has handled the question of student grants with great tact, understanding, or even sympathy. The reason for this is that students are not a particularly popular section of the community. I think that they have made reasonable requests, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will state very soon when he intends to implement the recommendations of the advisory committee on student grants, and when he will accept the suggestion of the N.U.S. to restrain prices which directly affect students. This is manifestly important for them. Perhaps he will also concern himself with the suggestion that there should be a separate grant for lodgings, because these

vary substantially and cause great difficulty for many students.
Last night at Cambridge I met a student in his third year. He told me that his college bill was precisely the same as it was when he went there two and a half years ago. At that time, every day of the week he had breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Now he misses breakfast and lunch, and has only four dinners a week. This gives some indication of the rise in the cost of living for students.
I think that there should be an inquiry into the cost effectiveness of teacher training. The cost of training teachers in 1965–66 was £64 million, and I suggest that we are not getting value for money. In 1965 there were 73,000 teachers under training, but there was a net gain of only just under 4,000 to the service. This is a little unfair, because some of this wastage is a result of retirement, but it works out that it is costing £16,000 to add one teacher to the service. This seems an expensive way of recruiting teachers.
We know that a large part of the wastage is accounted for by women who leave the service to get married. This is an inevitable fact of life, but 12 per cent. of the men entering training colleges fail to enter the profession. Nearly a third of the men who join the colleges are lost to the profession after seven years' service. Detailed work has been done by Professor Kelsall on the attitude of women to teaching, and the time has now come for a similar study on the attitude and wastage of men. What causes 12 per cent. of them to drop out before joining the profession and 4 per cent. each year thereafter? Are we getting the wrong people, and could our selection procedures be improved? What part do financial incentives play in this wastage? We should find the answers to these questions, because we are spending too much money with too little return from our teacher training.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth has undoubtedly had some problems with his own party in framing this Motion. I understand that one of them is a pamphlet published this week. I am sorry that I speak before the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) in this connection. His pamphlet, "Education—Equality and Inequality ", states what has been called


a classic Conservative doctrine of education. In the pamphlet, he said that the Tories must be against selection—

Mr. Angus Maude (Stratford-on-Avon): What the pamphlet said, quite clearly, is that Conservatives must stick by the principle of selection at all costs.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: There seems to be some conflict.

Mr. Pardoe: What the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon says is true, and I apologise for my slip of the tongue. The pamphlet said:
Conservatives ought to stand quite firmly for the principle of selection, however it is done and at whatever age.
I do not hold with that. I believe that it is unfortunate that such a statement should come from the Conservative Party in the very same week that the publication "Where?" has come out against streaming in secondary schools. There is now considerable feeling among educational experts against streaming in both primary and secondary schools.
I hold no brief for the "élitist" concept of education. Indeed, we are against an élite or a meritocracy. A liberal society needs its high fliers, but the quality of life will depend far more on the quality of average men and their development. An American university professor produced some interesting research recently which showed that, the higher the intelligence, the greater the tendency to liberalism—

Mr. Hogg: That is not borne out in this House.

Mr. Pardoe: I again reiterate that we are against selection because we believe that it creates and preserves an elite, whether it is selection for a school or selection within a school. We shall, somewhat reluctantly, vote for this Motion, because we are, as I said, clearly opposed to the cuts which have been announced. I do not accept the priorities stated by the right hon. Member for Handsworth, but, nevertheless, we are opposed to the general policy of cutting investment in people.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has pin-

pointed the difficulties of the party opposite in framing this Motion, because any one party which contains both the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) can have no coherent educational policy. Conservatives have shown us recently that they do not.
The right hon. Member for Hands-worth began with a survey of the years 1955–65, and I thought it refreshing that he admitted that he had neglected primary education. That sort of honesty from the Opposition Front Bench is very nice. But the real charge against the party opposite during those years was that, although they produced a certain amount of money for secondary education, because they had no policy and gave no direction about where or how the money was to be spent, it was spent in a large number of small, separate, unviable secondary schools which almost everyone would now agree would have been built in a way which makes it very difficult not only to go comprehensive but even to provide what the secondary school in the 1970s and 1980s should be and what education it should provide. It stems from exactly the same reason as this extraordinary Motion—that, fundamentally, the Conservatives never have had and never will have any agreed policy about education and any policy with which to direct the country.
Circular 6/68, on building programmes, was a sensible piece of realism injected into local authority programmes for the first time. I remember, as deputy chairman of an education committee, having the builders rush about on 31st March cutting out squares of turf on building sites just to prove that we had started building a school in one financial year instead of the next. However, it is occasionally necessary to "cut the cackle" about the enormous backlog of local authority building programmes which has built up, have a little realism and start from scratch. Then, one knows where one is. This is what is being done now: it would have had to be done some time. I agree with my right hon. Friend that, in terms of the actual numbers of buildings built, it will make little difference, but it will mean that programmes, when announced locally, have a little more realism.
Second, I turn to the cut in the amount of the rate support grant which local authorities will be able to spend on the schools. What worries me—I would like some reassurance on this—is that the local education authorities will not cut back on their programmes in the proportions which the Government have advised. This, of course, all stems from the absurdly wrong and stupid action of the Conservative Government in 1958 in getting rid of percentage grants for education. When we had these grants, it was possible to safeguard both the capital and current expenditure of the education programme properly—

Mr. Hogg: Would the hon. Gentleman remember that to get rid of percentage grants was part of his own party's election programme? Does he notice in any of the measures which we are discussing a proposal to return to percentage grants in accordance with the promise—" not lightly made ", I hope?

Mr. Price: It was a promise and it is one of which I shall keep reminding my party. It was a perfectly coherent decision. We have set up a Royal Commission on Local Government and it would be nonsensical, before it reports—which it should, very shortly—to make a fundamental decision like this. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows what my party has always said about fundamental decisions of this kind about local government. The party opposite spent 13 years letting local government go to pieces, doing nothing about its problems. My party has always said that, when the Royal Commission has reported, we can then consider doing something about this sort of problem: that will be the time to do it.

Mr. James Hamilton: My hon. Friend referred to 1958. The House will remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that time resigned because of the policy being followed by the then Government. A few weeks ago, in a statement in another place, he left us in no doubt that the policies being pursued at that time were the start of the economic situation in which we now find ourselves and for which we must make these cuts.

Mr. Price: I hardly need remind hon. Gentlemen opposite of the highly embarrassing speech which Lord Thorney-

croft made in another place the other day. It had its own effect.
The Government have made certain recommendations about cuts in education and in the urban road programme. I ask my right hon. Friend to keep a close watch over the activities of local education authorities to ensure that the power of city and county treasurers does not result in cuts which should be made in the road programme impinging upon education.
Although it is some time since we lost the percentage grant for education, I accept that to reintroduce such policies takes a considerable time to work out. However, I suggest that the current expenditure of local authorities needs more supervision from Curzon Street than has been the case in the pas t, particularly at times when such supervision occurred through the percentage grant system. That is why I hope that, at the earliest opportunity following the report of the Royal Commission, the Government will introduce measures to bring in some form of percentage grant for education.
A cut which I heartily applaud—indeed, I wish that it had gone further —is that in the capitation grant for direct grant schools. I suggest that its time that we completely abolished this anachronistic, antedeluvian, out-dated system of private grant aided schools. It is silly in some respects to talk about lirect grant schools, because they are so different in character.
Some of them, notably the Catholic ones, are not like direct grant schools in that most of them take almost 100 per cent. free places. The Catholics are in the position of having grammar schools which are direct grant schools and secondary modern schools which are voluntary aided. Many of them are in the process of going comprehensive with this split system. They would probably welcome some help from the Government to enable them to readjust, so that all of their schools could come under the same system. There is no significant difference between these schools. since the grammar schools take virtually 100 per cent. free places and are subsidised out of the national Exchequer instead of out of the rates. This problem could be dealt with relatively easily.
The other direct grant schools, however —and I regret that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) is not in his place, because this particularly applies in Scotland—are completely illogical. In Scotland, most of the direct grants schools—certainly the majority of those in Glasgow and Edinburgh—have no free places whatever. In other words, every pupil comes from the Edinburgh and Glasgow upper professional classes. They are subsidised quite heavily out of my constituents' taxes and those of everybody else. There is no justification in the present economic situation for this sort of thing to go on.
The other difference in Scotland is that not only do they have direct grant secondary schools, but direct grant primary schools as well; and from the age of five in Scotland there is a completely segregated system, the subsidised upper classes paying fees, to which are added a heavy subsidy from the taxpayer. Meanwhile, we have a very depressed State system which desperately needs more of the taxpayer's money injected in to it. The more money we inject into private education, the less money is available for the State system. This is Galbraithian in that the greater the private affluence the worse the public squalor. That is why I hope that my right hon. Friend will soon be in a position to announce the end of the direct grant system so that the taxpayer's money is injected only into the State system.
It will be up to the direct grant schools to decide whether or not to come into the State system. Many of them will do so and some have already indicated their willingness to join. In any case, they must decide on which side of the fence they wish to be, and if they wish to stay on the private side, they must charge fees which represent the true cost of educating their pupils.

Mr. Maude: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by the "State system of education "? Is he aware that the direct grant schools are the only real State schools?

Mr. Price: That is an interesting gloss on the phrase I used. I mean by the State system those schools which are financed in terms of their current expenditure wholly by local authorities,

and that includes a large number of Roman Catholic schools.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the direct grant schools make great play of being members of the Headmasters' Conference, which is the representative body only of the independent sector, and that many of them regard themselves as being completely outside the State system. In many respects they do not show a sense of responsibility to the cities in which they stand and which often played an important part in founding them, their original charters showing them to be schools for the poor boys of the parish. Instead, many of them now simply serve the rich boys of the area.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Price: I, too, have read the interesting summer school chat of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), which has been glossed up by the Conservative Central Office—with a long and rather tedious Press release—into a pamphlet representing Conservative thinking in education. If that represents Conservative thinking on this subject, the party opposite had better give the matter some real thought.
It was wrong to delay the proposal to increase t he school leaving age. That decision cannot be lightly forgiven. We are really talking about a sum of £70 million, which would have been spent on allegedly raising the school-leaving age but which will not now be spent. It should be remembered that that money was not to be spent exclusively on secondary education. Some of it was to be spent on sixth form colleges, primary schools and infant schools. One cannot, in framing priorities for education, spend money on primal y education and not on secondary education. The two are inextricably linked to city and county school systems to such an extent that it is impossible to decide to boost primary instead of secondary education, or vice versa.
For example, the great moves towards secondary education of the late ’fifties and early ’sixties did more for primary education than the right hon. Member for Handsworth perhaps realises. Every time a new secondary school was built, the old school—probably a depressing building in appearance—was usually


gutted and given a completely new interior. Often the result was a far better and more cost-effective primary school than we could possibly have got had we started from scratch. One can do other things for primary schools apart from providing new buildings but, in terms of buildings, one cannot separate education in this way.
I also completely disagree with what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North said about preparation for raising the leaving age. No educational reform has had as much preparation as this. I admit that certain teachers, certain teacher organisations, and hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who is not present, mounted a campaign against this reform, but the argument was not that 1971 was not the right time to raise it but that it should not be raised at all. Many of their arguments could equally well have been used for lowering the school-leaving age to 11 or 10 years of age.
I agree with many of the arguments advanced against postponement, but what strikes me even more than the disparity between the North of England and the South of England is the very great disparity in Britain—and it is far more pronounced in the United States—between the inner ring of our big cities and the lush suburbs beyond.
I was brutally reminded of this recently when I went to Detroit and to Newark, New Jersey. The scarred ruins, the looted shops and the boarded-up premises reminded me very poignantly of the sort of situation that could be reached here in 10 or 15 years' time if something is not done about this terrible gap between the inner rings of our cities and the suburbs outside them. Local government reorganisation will do a great deal, but this gap, in terms of raising the school-leaving age, is far more marked than any difference between North and South.
In Sheffield, where for some time I had some responsibility for education, we had some areas in which not more than 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of the children ever went to grammar school, and not more than 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of the residue ever stayed on beyond the compulsory age. In other areas of the city, virtually 80 per cent. or 85 per cent. of all children stayed on beyond the age. If

we allow these two situations to exist, not so much, say, as between Maidstone and Newcastle, but within a mile or two of each other in one community—and we are still some way from it—the ultimate and inevitable effect will be utter social disruption.
In a city like Birmingham, this problem is aggravated by the immigrant situation, where the immigrants are just a facet of the social position. If a school is not only socially deprived but almost 100 per cent. coloured into the bargain my mind boggles at what we shall be storing up for ourselves in the next two generations by just ignoring the position—and total postponement of the raising of the school-leaving age is ignoring it.
I am glad that the postponement is only for two years. I was very pleased when my right hon. Friend said, as I think he did last week—Education got it all wrong —that the pledge to raise the age in 1973 is absolute. I am pleased that we have had that pledge, but in case there are second thoughts I would remind my right hon. Friend that we will remind him of it over the next few years.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude (Stratford-on-Avon): the whole House will greatly have enjoyed the plea of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) for consistency in political party policies on education. Since he presumably intends to vote for a major decision which is described as unforgiveable, and which 41 Members of his party have stigmatised on the Order Paper as a betrayal of Labour election pledges, since he is clearly violently at odds with his own party about the percentage grant for education, and since he has delivered a violent ideological attack on the direct grant schools which almost every member of his party who opens his mouth about independent schools has decided are the right model for those schools, the hon. Gentleman can hardly be taken as a model of consistency.
Nevertheless, there is, perhaps, a greater measure of consistency in Labour Party education policy than he has been prepared to admit. It has generally been the same: to offer the earth in opposition, to promise a crash programme of rapid improvement during election campaigns,


and then to cut the rate of growth when they get into office.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State is now leaving us, but despite that I propose to say a word or two about the deplorable and shabby speech he has made this afternoon. How the right hon. Gentleman can have the cool nerve to come here, after the performance he has put up since taking the office, and the performance he has put up today—a defeated man without even the strength of mind left to fight for what he believes in or to resign if he loses—and talk about the shabby record in education of the Conservative Government, passes my comprehension.
It is manifestly available to anyone who studies the statistics that there has been complete consistency in Labour Government policy since 1964. They have cut the rate of educational expansion and building, and have done so from the moment they came into office. In real terms, the rate of completions in school building fell in the first and second years of Labour Government compared with the last year of the Conservative Government. The rate of expansion in education has slowed down since a Labour Government came into office. Moreover, they have picked out the meanest little cuts they could find. That, perhaps, is the most deplorable thing about the Secretary of State's performance —and, indeed, about that of the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole.
This series of cuts has been carefully designed for two purposes. The first is to disguise the cut in education, where possible, and then to shift the political brain. Secondly, it could hardly have been better designed to fall most hardly on those who will feel it worst. After all, freezing the rate support grant—who will it hurt most—the poor backward local authorities, or the rich ones with high rateable value? The decision not to let student grant keep up with the increased cost of living—who will this hurt worst; the well-off students with wealthy parents or the children of poor parents who are living exclusively on grants? How the Secretary of State can talk to us about the shabby record of the Conservative Government, under which there was a rate of expansion and improvement in educational provision

unequalled in any comparable period in our history, passes my comprehension.
Speaking of the direct-grant schools, the right hon. Gentleman said, with a Uriah Heap expression on his face, that it was perfectly all right for those who were lucky enough to be able to pay for their children's education to have the subsidy cut. Who is really lucky in this instance? The lucky ones are, of course, the 25 per cent., or 50 per cent., of direct-grant school children who are getting their education provided free by the local authority with the aid of the direct grant.
It is the Secretary of State who is lucky to have parents who are prepared to pay fees so as to subsidise children who otherwise would be flooding out the secondary schools in the maintained sector. It is time that the Secretary of State realised who are the benefactors of education in this country. He will go down in history as the man with the shabbiest record of any Minister or Secretary of State for Education in my lifetime.
It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman cannot be a little more honest about future prospects, too. There was never a word about what are to be the effects of the decision to freeze the increase in education expenditure to a level of 3 per cent. or 3½ per cent. after 1968–69. Anyone can calculate that, with even a minimum improvement factor, the number of children who have to be accommodated and the number of students who have to be accommodated in further and higher education, that the increase in the cost of education will run at about 6 per cent. per annum. The Secretary of State, on the orders of the Prime Minister, proposes to freeze the increase in provision at 3 or 3½ per cent. per annum.
What will be the result? Did the Secretary of State tell us honestly that it will mean provision spread more thinly over a wider field, or else that we are to have at last to decide an order of priorities and cut something savagely? No, not a word of it. He was too busy talking about the shabby record of Tory Governments, but this is what is to happen without the slightest doubt. If that decision is adhered to, we shall have a steadily depreciating maintained system of education and probably of the system of higher and further education as well.
If the right hon. Gentleman spreads these resources thinner over wider needs the result will inevitably be what I have suggested, This will fall on the poorer authorities, on the poorer students, on the poorer universities. These are the ones which will suffer most. I cannot help wondering whether the Secretary of State would have been quite so keen to accept the particularly shabby solution which the Government have found if nearly all the local education authorities in the country did not happen to be Conservative-controlled. We know perfectly well what is to happen. As a result of the freezing of the rate support grant, and as a result incidentally of the cut in the capitation fee to direct-grant schools, local education authorities will either cut their provision and the number of places in direct-grant schools, or have to raise the rates.
When the complaints begin to go up from the people who are affected, what will the Secretary of State say? He will either say nothing at all, or he will say, "You should refer yourself to your local education authority, which, of course, is Conservative-controlled." I advise every local education authority in the country to start its campaign now to pin the responsibility for this shabby series of cuts where it belongs, on the Secretary of State for Education, on the Prime Minister and on members of the party which, despite their belief that this is a betrayal of all the election promises of their party, are prepared to vote for this series of cuts in the Division.
They cannot shuffle off the responsibility for this betrayal and try to pretend that it is the responsibility of another party or another set of people. It is not. The Secretary of State for Education cannot even honour the undertakings of his predecessor—

Mr. Hogg: Nor his own.

Mr. Maude: —who undertook, for example, that he would keep the capitation grant for direct grant schools steady until the Newsom Committee had reported. He refuses to raise them because they must be left unchanged until the Newsom Committee has reported. It is a strange kind of leaving unchanged which enables the Secretary of State to announce that the grant will be cut within a few weeks of the original decision.
I do not think that during all the years I have been interested in education and taken part in education debates in this House I have ever heard a Minister make a worse case with a more hang-dog air and make a more miserable job of trying to justify it.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Until four months ago I was not a member of this House, but head teacher of a secondary modern school in the City of Manchester. I had devoted most of my teaching career to the less able and socially deprived children and most of the remainder to the boys who had stayed on for a fifth year even though they had failed to pass the 11-plus examination and not gone on to grammar school. I had been appointed as a head teacher shortly after the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) announced the decision to raise the school-leaving age in 1971.
I realised that there was need for thought and work and experiment to make that a success, but there was no reason why it should not have been a success from the teachers' point of view. We had seven years' notice, and teachers who say that we would not have been ready were not trying to get ready. I initiated a number of teaching schemes. The staff of my school responded with great enthusiasm. So did the local education authority which was then Labour-controlled. It allocated grants, not only to my school but to a number of schools in the city, to enable them to carry out experimental work. This was extended, with the assistance of the university in Manchester and the local authorities in the area, until the North-West Curricula Development Group was set up.
I believe that we in the North-West, at any rate, would have ben ready both with the buildings and the curriculum by 1970. Five months ago I told the parents of my first-year pupils that their sons would be staying at school until they were 16. That was a very proud moment for me because I had worked for this not only in schools but in speaking to teachers' organisations and in other ways. I admit that some of my words fell on stony ground but I felt that this was a necessary action, that it was socially and educationally desirable and would benefit


the young people and the country as a whole.
It was therefore with a very heavy heart that on 18th January I went into the Division Lobby in support of a Government who were postponing the raising of the school leaving age and against an Opposition who said they would not have postponed it. Some told me that 1 should have abstained, but I could not do that. I had just fought an election campaign in which I had urged Labour supporters not to abstain because of disagreement with this or that aspect of Government policy but to consider the Government's achievements, to consider their difficulties and also to look at the alternative. Considering the alternative helped me to go through that Lobby on 18th January. Although hon. Members of the Opposition say that they would not postpone raising the school leaving age in those circumstances, I did not believe them. I have great respect for the right hon. Member for Hands-worth. I have heard him in the House and in many other places. However, he does not have a united party behind him on education. He does not have a united party here. Even less does he have a united party in the country for the ideas which he advances.
The failure of the Opposition's Amendment to the package deal on 17th January to mention education was significant, because then the other part of the Opposition was in the Chamber throughout the day. The calls then were, not for education and social service, but for guns before schools. Although right hon. Members here tonight may mean what they say, I take leave not to believe that a Conservative Government would not have made these, and even more severe, cuts in education in these financial circumstances.
The same applies to the precision of the Motion today. There is no mention of the raising of the leaving age or of any other matter, because the support of the Conservative Party cannot be assured for those points. The Conservative Government's whole record and their decisions at times of crisis is against it. The only previous election I fought before the one which brought me here was in 1955. My opponent then was a lady called Florence Horsbrugh. Right hon.

Members opposite do well to look pale. I notice that according to the opening speech today Conservative educational history began in 1955.
I do not want to look back altogether to those days. There were some achievements and there was some growth under the Conservative Government. The last meeting I attended as a head teacher was called in the City of Manchester by the Chief Education Officer in September to consider the problems caused by the City Council's decision to cut education spending in the last five months of the financial year. This was before devaluation, before the package deal and before the postponement of the raising of the leaving age was announced. Some of the things which were cut were the cleaning of schools and the heating of schools. Manchester schools, which are heated by coke boilers, are very cold on Monday mornings. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman express the hope that there would be a mild winter.
Teachers' courses have been cut. Even if the raising of the leaving age is considered as a curriculum problem, it is not so much a problem of training new teachers as of training experienced teachers to think in new ways and to act in new ways. These are the types of courses which were cut in Manchester before the announcement of the postponement. The grants which had been made available for experiment—they were called Newsom projects—were completely washed out. These were forming the basis of our experimental work towards the raising of the leaving age.
I do not want to labour this, because I realise how hard pressed chairmen of some education committees—I include Manchester in this—are, in that they have Conservative-controlled—councils. I realise the difficult position in which the right hon. Member for Handsworth is placed by the fact that he is not fully supported by his colleagues in the House. I believe that the leaders of both major parties and all hon. Members should urge their local councillors to exercise restraint in their enthusiasm for cutting.
The main theme of my speech is that we must ensure that the two-year delay is used to the best advantage. We have heard this evening that the cuts were dictated by the Treasury and that it would


have been impossible for the leaving age to have been raised at the stated date even if there had not been an economic crisis. I do not believe this. I accept my right hon. Friend's word that the leaving age will be raised in 1973.
During that period we have certain jobs to do. One is the training of teachers. In-service courses are necessary for the numbers of teachers who will be coming out of the colleges. Because the school leaving age is not being raised until 1973, they will he available to release teachers for further study. We must extend the links between universities, colleges of education and schools. They still have some fear of each other.
We must extend and develop the experimental work which has been going on. This is a job for the Government and for local education authorities. The raising of the leaving age should be taken in two steps. I have always believed that the way in which it was proposed to be done was wrong and that in the fifth year boys and girls would have been leaving at Easter. That would not have been a solution to many of the problems which exist. I believe that the establishment first, in 1969 or 1970, of a single leaving date will be a valuable contribution. Immediately after the announcement of the package deal I tabled a Motion to this effect, which so far has gained 60 supporters. I was glad to learn today that hon. Members opposite are also viewing this idea with favour, and I hope that they will support it. Indeed, one might have hoped that they would have supported it before. Perhaps the afternoon editions of the papers has helped them along.
The full fourth year will not be expensive. Both sides of the House should view this with favour. Teachers to whom I have spoken support the idea, although I must admit that many teachers to whom I have spoken are quite happy about the postponement of the leaving age.
If my proposal were adopted, school organisation and careers guidance work would be easier. There is a feeling now that youth employment officers will be running round in small circles in June trying to find jobs for all the leavers. Nowadays the work of youth employment and careers guidance officers is more than this. It is work spread over

a period in the schools which do it well on a careers programme basis. The better employers would approve of the full four-year course. I know that some would like to get young employees earlier, but most would welcome the single-year entry to fit in with their apprenticeship schemes, and the transition to industrial training and full time courses in technical colleges and further education would be much more convenient. I hope that my right hon. Friend will let us know what progress there is on the question of the school-leaving age and the single school leaving date.
Our education system is closely tied to our social system, and our education opportunities are tied closely to the social and economic background of the children's parents. It is unlikely that the child of a Member of Parliament, a teacher, a businessman or a member of one of the professions will leave school at 15 as a result of this Government decision. Those of us who realise the value of additional education, whether our children are 11-plus successes or not, keep them on at school until they are 16 and even later. Therefore, we have a particular responsibility to the other children. To many children, staying on at school is an economic problem for their parents, and I hope that the Government will extend maintenance grants and issue the same kind of information about them as they have for school meals. This would be of benefit.
There is also what I might call a productivity factor—school attendance. Not enough attention is paid to the fact that many children do not attend school regularly, and do not have a 10-year course but sometimes have a seven year course. No national statistics are collected on the question of attendance. I believe that much delinquency and many of our education problems result from failure to check on absence from school early enough, and from the insufficiency of welfare officers and other people to examine the causes of absence.
In an experiment in Manchester last year, a welfare officer was put full-time with a secondary school which had a poor attendance record. As a result, over a four-month period the attendance at that school jumped by 13 per cent. which is as good as raising the school-leaving age for a number of children, and


delinquency dropped from 15 in the comparable period to nil.
I hope that in her reply to the debate my right hon. Friend will give notice to the local education authorities of the need for courses, will express her views on the single school leaving date, will consider circulating information to parents on maintenance and clothing grants, and will consider the importance of school attendance.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Throughout the debates on devaluation the Government insisted that it had been meticulously planned, that the whole operation and its consequences were being carried through according to a blueprint of advanced thinking. Against that background, it was reassuring in those debates to hear repeated assurances that the school building programme would be safeguarded.
The Prime Minister told us:
… the school building programme, … will continue to expand …" — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 1341.]
On television, he told the nation:
… school building will be safeguarded …
Those declarations hardly suggested that cuts in the programme were being planned, and that the raising of the school-leaving age was about to be postponed. I suppose that we must accept this as another example of the frank speaking which has puzzled the nation so often.
I want to deal with three points: first, the proposed cut in the student grant; second, the cut in the quinquennial review for the Scottish universities; and, third, the postponement of the raising of the school-leaving age. Many hon. Members would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), who called attention to the responsible way in which the student unions have handled the grant problem. They are not asking that they should be singled out for exclusion from all effects of the economic squeeze, but they fail, as I do, to understand by what process of logic the Secretary of State can declare now that half the increase to be recommended by the Advisory Panel will be denied to students.
That statement was made in the House before the evidence to the panel was known and before the recommendations were announced. Whatever the evidence and whatever the recommendations, only half the increase will be allowed to the students. Further, there is no evidence of any selectivity in the way in which this half increase will be provided.
I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that there are pressing cases of need among students—those from poorer homes and those in particular categories who have extraordinary expenses, such as senior medical students and students of subjects like architecture, fine arts and geography, whose costs for equipment and books far exceed the standard £35 allowance.
I do not think that the House yet realises the shock which the University Grants Committee's review has provided for nearly all the Scottish universities, old and new alike. If the review is implemented as set out by the Committee, the effect on many of the universities will be to reduce the teaching staff and cut down the number of students which they can take. The impact is particularly severe on the newer technological universities of Strathclyde and Herriot-Watt, where the cuts may be quite substantial.
In the case of Herriot-Watt, for example, I understand that the Committee based its review on 1,200 students, whereas the present number of students at the university is 1,500 and the university is ready to go up to 2,000, with all the places being filled. The impact of the review, therefore, would be to cut back universities at the heart of the technological advance in education which the Prime Minister used to speak about with such enthusiasm.
I hope that the Government will look at the way in which the finances of the universities are administered and will consider whether the University Grants Committee is still the proper structure for the Scottish universities—whether, in its present form, it is the best means of establishing the needs of the universities and meeting them.
The postponement of the higher school-leaving age springs directly from the Government's mismanagement of the economy but in Scotland there is another factor. There we have suffered from


mismanagement of education itself, a lack of planning and preparation which had already, before devaluation, put the raising of the school-leaving age in jeopardy. The Secretary of State for Scotland must have welcomed the decision forced on the Government by their economic bungling, since, for the present, that decision has got him off the hook.
Despite the rapid approach of 1970, the Government's preparations to meet the education challenge and the opportunities of 1971 were totally inadequate. Their school building record in Scotland was shameful. We have catalogued their failures in other debates but I will indicate their extent by pointing out that, in 1966, the number of new school places approved in Scotland was the lowest for 15 years.
Last year, the Government took belated action and allocations for the following three years were substantially increased. We were told, in an education debate in the Scottish Grand Committee last July, by the Under-Secretary of State:
The local education authorities have now been given substantial allocations, and there is no disposition on our part to hold them up with the implementation of plans for meeting the raising of the school leaving age. In fact, our task, as my right hon. Friend has said, is to encourage them to get on with the job as quickly as they possibly can."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 4th July, 1967; c. 152.]
Six months later, after half a year of purposive planning, local authorities were sent the notorious Circular 6/67, requiring them to reduce their school-building programmes by £6 million over two years in what was euphemistically described as "rephasing ".
This, of course, was flying in the face of all the assurances given to the House and the Scottish Grand Committee time and again a few months ago. So the Secretary of State for Scotland marched his troops to the top of the hill in July and marched them down again in January. Yet he chooses to remain in office imposing cuts on the local authorities which he has confused and disenchanted in this shameful way.
Even more serious than the school building failure is the shortage of teachers. By 1971, we would have had a shortage of 6,500 had the school-leaving age gone up that year, and more than 9,000 if the classes were to be reduced

to a tolerable size. Yet the Government took totally inadequate action to try and ease the shortage.
The months passed; the Government tinkered, presumably hoping that something would turn up. Something did turn up—the Government's decision to postpone the raising of the school-leaving age. But that decision will not remove the shortage confronting Scotland, which will still be about 2,000 teachers short in 1971. By 1973, with the increase in the school population, the shortage will be even more desperate unless urgent action is taken.
What will the Government's action be? Their decision to postpone the raising of the school-leaving age has had the effect in Scotland of buying the Secretary of State two years' extra time in which to prepare for this great challenge. How will this time be used? What new action is proposed to bridge the gap between the need for and the supply of teachers? If there is no new action and there are no new initiatives, the educational system will not be ready to meet the challenge even in 1973. If the shortage of teachers is not overcome or eased, the purpose of this great educational opportunity will fail and if it fails the children will suffer and respect for education itself will be eroded.
I hesitate to ask for an assurance, because an assurance from the present Government about a course of action is a near guarantee that the reverse course will be taken in the end. However, will the Secretary of State at least accept that nothing damages education more than indecision and violent fluctuations in policy? Will he also convey to the Secretary of State for Scotland the need for a clear and early statement of the steps which are now to be taken to meet the challenge of 1973?

8.42 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: It was inevitable that the Opposition should use this debate to launch a full-scale attack on the Government's education policy. I am very glad that they have done so. If they had had the courage of their convictions and had moved a Motion condemning the Government for delaying the raising of the school-leaving age, I would have found myself in some difficulty this evening, but,


as it is, I shall have no difficulty going into the Lobby against the Motion, because, however much I may disagree with some of the things which the Government have done, the Labour Government's record in every aspect of education is infinitely better than that of their predecessor, whether it is teacher supply, or the school building programme, or any other aspect.
One of the accusations levelled against us has been that we have neglected primary school building. That was the main criticism of the whole period of Conservative rule when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were far more concerned with the universities and with higher education than with the primary schools. Over that period it was also the line taken by the Liberal Party, in spite of what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said tonight.
How many hon. Members can remember the names of the succession of Conservative Ministers of Education since 1951? Some of them were not even in the Cabinet. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite thought so much of the importance of education that they did not put their Ministers of Education in the Cabinet. I can remember one bright moment as a teacher when, in the middle 1950s, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was made Minister of Education and for a few weeks or months we in the schools were genuinely impressed. We thought that we had a Minister who would do a good job for education.
However, after about nine months the powers that be suddenly decided that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be far more use as Chairman of the Conservative Party. Presumably they thought that the education of the Conservative Party was more important than educating children. At the last Conservative Party conference democracy went mad and there was a vote, the first time in history that there has been a vote at the Conservative Party conference. Since then, something interesting has happened in the House.
The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has suddenly appeared on the Conservative Front Bench as an education

spokesman. I think that he would accept that he is not reckoned to be the most progressive member of that party.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Since the hon. Member has made rather a point about the number of Conservative Education Ministers, would he care to reflect that tinder the present Administration we have had three in three years, which, I think, gives an average of one a year?

Mr. Mitchell: I take the point, but it does not destroy the argument. When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) took charge it was at that stage that the party opposite really began to take an interest in education.
I very much regret the decision to postpone school-leaving age. May I ask the Government to put back into the 1970–71 programme the major part of the R.S.L.A. allocations? It is very important that the education profession should be absolutely certain that this will not be postponed again. This atmosphere must be created now. Secondly, I would like to see a more definite policy emerge about educational priority areas.
We are still rather doubtful about how the £16 million will be spent. I very much hope that at least a start will be made on the nursery provisions recommended by Plowden, even if it means in the first instance an element of fee-paying. I would rather have that than nothing at all.
Thirdly, there is the question of student grants. I do not mind the decision to reduce by 50 per cent. the increase in these grants. It is fair that, in the economic difficulties, students should make their sacrifices just as other workers have. However, I hope that we do not penalise anyone and put them to considerable hardship as a result of this step. I would not mind if there is no increase at all for some people provided that those in real need receive something I would hope that special attention will be paid to mature students with a family These are the people who suffer most.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington) rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry, but I have promised to finish my speech at ten minutes to nine to allow someone else the opportunity to speak.


I am a little worried about what will happen in some local authorities. Some are looking upon the Government circular, asking for restrictions in spending, with a great deal of glee. This is a wonderful opportunity for them to make all sorts of cuts and keep down the rates. Incidentally, many of these are Conservative-controlled authorities. I hope that the Secretary of State will look very carefully at this, and do his best to ensure that education authorities do not make bigger cuts than is absolutely necessary.
I regret very much the decision to postpone the raising of the school-leaving age. The Motion is a general condemnation of this Government's educational policy, but I am proud of the educational policy of this Government in comparison with previous Conservative Governments, although I may disagree with certain things which have been done recently.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: Last Friday evening in Cambridge the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs said that devaluation would be a stick of dynamite which had blown open the prison gates in which the British economy had been incarcerated in recent years. Here we have another addition to the vocabulary of illusion. Devaluation indeed is going to prove dynamite for educationists, and dynamite at the end of a delayed-action fuse, because the full consequences are only now becoming clear for local authorities and others.
May I ask for reassurance on two points stressed by some earlier speakers about secondary reorganisation. I am not very hopeful of getting them, but I ask the right hon. Lady to do what she can. I am not one of those against comprehensive schools on principle. Comprehensives have a very important place—indeed, a growing place—in our future educational system, but let them take it through evolution and not through compulsion. Given the immense care which local education authorities have been taking in the last two years or so to work out viable schemes, and given the obvious effect of these cuts, I hope the Secretary of State is not going to be tempted to step up his pressure for faster secondary reorganisation, but rather to relax it. In my view, compre-

hensives should be still lower in the order of priorities in the education field than they have been hitherto. Here the Government have a real opportunity to show educational statesmanship over the next few years.
On direct grant schools I hope the right hon. Lady will confirm that there is no intention of treating the direct grant schools with deliberate harshness, as might appear to be the case from the disproportionately large cuts they have to suffer in the grant. We are all aware of the problem of associating the public schools more closely with the mainstream of education—that is, the State system—and many of us feel that the direct grant principle is an important key to solving this problem; so it would be doubly unfortunate, when the Newsom Commission is approaching the end of its work, if the direct grant schools were singled out for unfair treatment.
May I stress two areas where I hope we can continue to make progress even in the climate of general financial stringency. The first is the school's curriculum. The deferment of the raising of the school leaving age gives us more time to make sure that the extra year, when it comes, will be worth while. The Dainton Committee is about to report. I would like to plead the needs of industry and the importance of developing more links between industry and the schools, particularly with teachers. We know that a lot of work has been done already, and I hope that it may be extended.
The second area where I believe we can make progress without enormous expense is in the priority areas. I have in mind especially the education of immigrant children. This is no problem in Cambridge so far, but I am familiar with parts of London where it is a problem. I wish some of my hon. and right hon. Friends would put less emphasis on curtailing immigration and more emphasis on tackling the problems which arise from the immigrants who are already here. These problems are interconnected, and obviously it may be necessary to restrict immigration further; but, even though we stop immigration completely tomorrow, we shall have to face the job of integrating in the education system the children of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who are already here. I pay


tribute to the patience and understanding with which so many administrators and teachers are trying to tackle this problem.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about the universities. This is the latest of a succession of disappointments resulting from financial restraints. The universities' prospects for the next few years were already extremely tight before these cuts. Now they have to cope with the effects of devaluation, not only on the building programme, from which some universities, although not all, will suffer, but in facing the further increases in costs such as on equipment and on books bought from abroad. Obviously there is a very difficult period of adjustment ahead for the universities.
I endorse strongly two comments made in the 1966–67 Report of the University Grants Committee. The first is that more emphasis should be placed on undergraduate work rather than post-graduate work. As the Report puts it,
There is uneasiness that the rise in the proportion of graduates who stay in the universities for post-graduate studies, rather than moving into teaching or the outside world, is greater than the country can afford at present.
The second comment, which I applaud is for greater collaboration with industry. The Report says:
There is no doubt that it would be valuable if the universities collectively made a further deliberate and determined effort to gear a larger part of their ' output' to the economic and industrial needs of the nation, for few things could be more vital to the national economy at the present time than the proper deployment of highly qualified scientific manpower and the application of research to the solution of current technological and economic problems.
This is one of several sad occasions in the House since the devaluation decision soon after I became a Member of it. If I may recall a metaphor used at devaluation time by the Prime Minister, he said that he hoped that the country would have the chance of breaking out of a straitjacket. What has happened is that the Government have imposed an even tighter straitjacket on the education service. This is a serious setback to the whole momentum of educational advance, and I do not think that anyone, on either side of the House, will be satisfied until a higher rate of progress can be resumed.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: The melancholy fact is that, as a result

of a large number of hours' debate, the Secretary of State has no friends at all in the House. Not one speaker has come to his aid, except one one point. One member of the Conservative Party agreed with him about the school-leaving age. One member of the Liberal Party agreed with him about the school-leaving age. As I understood the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), although I found it difficult to follow his speech, one member of the Labour Party agreed with him about the school-leaving age. Apart from that, no speech has been in favour of the Secretary of State. This is a matter of fact.
Two hon. Members who condemned him much more roundly than I propose to do—the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) and Epping (Mr. Newens), who has on the Order Paper a far more savage denunciation of the Government's cuts than we have—have sought to comfort themselves with the argument that this is a debate about the Government's general policy on education.
However, it is nothing of the kind. They sought to comfort themselves with the reflection that, if it were a debate condemning the postponement of the raising of the age for full-time compulsory education, they would either have abstained and thus been disciplined, or perhaps even voted in our Lobby; but that, as it was a general condemnation of Labour Party policy on education, they could not. However, that is not what the Motion says, and it is right to recall it to the memory of the House.
It says:
That this House regrets that the education service should have been subjected to cuts ….
It has been subjected to cuts, and the whole of the Motion relates to the cuts to which it has been subjected.
It says that it
… regrets that the education service should have been subjected to cuts which are educationally damaging ….
We have not heard a single speech which has not regretted that the cuts are educationally damaging, and that regret was shared by the right hon. Gentleman.
It regrets that the cuts should have been based on a false sense of priority. With three exceptions, one from the Conservative benches, one from the


Liberal benches, and one from the back benches opposite, we have not heard a single speaker, except the right hon. Gentleman, who has not condemned them for springing from wrong priorities.
The third ground of criticism is that they are disproportionate to the cuts as a whole. Again, with the solitary exception of the right hon. Gentleman, who tried to "fudge" the argument by a reference to percentages which I shall explore presently, not a single speaker pretended that the educational cuts have borne a due proportion to the whole of the cuts to which public spending has been subjected.
The only excuse, tentatively and rather shamefacedly put forward by the hon. Members for Epping and Southampton, Test, has been that they regard the Motion as a general attack on Labour Party educational policy, which is a view which bears no relation to the terms of the Motion.
As it is St. Valentine's Day, I pause in the explosion of raspberries which I propose to blow across the Floor of the House to say how pleasant it is to be sitting once more opposite the right hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon). She and I have a tolerable working relationship in home affairs. It is a pleasant surprise to find that we are now moving ahead to the next logical phase, which is to discuss the education of children.
How I wish that I could think of something nice to say about the Secretary of State. I came into the House with the best of intentions and with a genuine sense of sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman. I knew that he had been through a great deal in past weeks, as he had in past years. I thought that I really must take hold of myself and think of something nice to say about him. It is not an easy task to be at the head of his Department. One is at the head of a body of enthusiasts to whom one has to preach the unwelcome gospel that, as important as education is, there are other factors in public policy as well. And they do not like to hear it.
They are highly articulate and very well organised into bodies of teachers and of local education authorities, with a very well publicised Press and a very powerful lobby, and the task of a Secretary of

State is not an easy one, even when there is no financial crisis abroad.
We all know that, when there is a financial crisis abroad, each colleague around the Cabinet table is asked to make his contribution. There is a hideous conflict between loyalty to the Department and loyalty to the other members of the Cabinet, and they are perfectly genuine, real loyalties which have to be reconciled.
I came into the House with sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman, even though I had won my battles and he has lost his. But I am bound to say that my sympathy evaporated with the last words of his speech when he began to attack my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) for hypocrisy in prosposing this Motion. He said that it was a hypocritical Motion. It is our Motion and I am with him in it, but my right hon. Friend drafted it. After 30 years' experience in Parliament, I must say that there is no hon, or right hon. Member in the House whose knowledge of education is deeper than that of my right hon. Friend, whose reputation in the world of education stands higher than that of my right hon. Friend, and whose every word reflects his sincerity more patently than that of my right hon. Friend.
Yet the right hon. Gentleman comes to this House with this shoddy attack upon him.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I was attacking all hon. and right hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman, the most calamitous Secretary of State this century, whose first act is described by the courts as utterly unreasonable and is trounced in another place by the Chairman of the British Museum Trustees, in each case for a basic want of integrity on his part, now, limping from a resounding defeat at the hands of his colleagues, from which education will suffer for another 15 years to come, comes here and accuses us of hypocrisy. The right hon. Gentleman excelled himself in the figures which he brought to the House, because any lingering sentiment of respect, let alone sympathy, that I might have had for him, totally disappeared when I heard that extraordinary perversion of the truth.
The only thing I will say to the right hon. Gentleman about his use of those figures is that he was repeating his


master's voice, because they were, in a slightly different form, an elaboration of the absurd boast made by the Prime Minister in paragraph 31 of the statement which has now become a White Paper:
Total expenditure is estimated this year at £1,989 million, an increase … of 42 per cent. since 1963–64.
By way of elaborating this extraordinary piece of self-deception the right hon. Gentleman quoted, subject by subject—and he read them as he might well read figures, the use of which he must be ashamed, too quickly for me to get them down in detail—comparisons between 1963–64 and the current year.
The right hon. Gentleman even went so far as to claim to the credit of the Labour Government the new entry into primary schools. If he had even studied the facts of life—which apparently have escaped him—he would have known that the parents had a modest but indispensable part to play in the number of school entrants at 5, and that whichever Government had been in power, unless, like King Herod the Great, they had been guilty of the massacre of the innocents, they would have had precisely the same number of entrants into the primary schools this year. Incidentally, they were all conceived under a Conservative Administration.
There is a more serious side to the right hon. Gentleman's use of this figure, and the use which his right hon. Friend made of it, because in any honest use of a comparison of this kind one must take account of the fact that the figures in any respect, for any policy in any one year, must bear a relationship to the projection of policies and plans from the previous year. One would think that the right hon. Gentleman, even if he started by knowing nothing about education, which he did, would at least have known that some account must be taken of the figure of school attendances, of the school population.
The fact is—and the right hon. Gentleman knew it as he uttered these words to the House—that every part of that increase, and more—because they have gone back and not forward—was due to the projection of Conservative policies, and he knows that the school population in the years 1960 to 1965 increased by

about 100,000, and from 1965 to 1970 will increase by about 800,000.
The truth is that we know that the only rule to adopt when handling a statement by the Prime Minister is not to accept a word of what he says unless he is corroborated by at least one independent witness. When the right hon. Gentleman uses figures in that sense from the Dispatch Box, I tell him that he defiles himself by deliberately misleading the House.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's abuse does not worry me. To what figure is he referring? He has not mentioned one figure, though he is attacking the figures which I gave

Mr. Hogg: I thought I made it plain. I mentioned a series of figures which the right hon. Gentleman produced. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I shall withdraw nothing. I shall repeat it if necessary. I am drawing attention to the use which the right hon. Gentleman made of the figures showing what he called the sorry record of the Conservative Party for the year 1963–64, and compared it with this year.
Now I proceed to the points in the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman must not be childish. The first point in the Motion which the right hon. Lady will have to answer is that these cuts are disproportionate to the whole of the cuts to which we have been subjected on the domestic front. That appears from the appendix to the Prime Minister's statement. if one takes, for instance, the year 1968–69, apart from the figure of £80 million investment grant, which has been stigmatised as bogus by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), for reasons which he gave in another debate, the largest figure is the educational cut of just short of £40 million—£39 million—out of £325 million.
These are the stark arithmetical facts, and the right hon. Gentleman tried to fudge it with percentages. If one looks at the figures for next year, 1969–70, and ignores the figures for roads, again one sees that education takes second place, at £58 million on £441 million. These. again, are the stark arithmetical facts declared by the Prime Minister's owl statement. As we have heard, again and


again, in this painful discussion, of course this is not all, because, hidden beneath the Prime Minister's statement, is the additional cut on the local authority grant, confining it to 3 per cent. Whether that means £25 million, as Sir William Alexander seems to have said, or £8 million, as I seemed to hear the Secretary of State say, is something which we can leave to subsequent research.
However, as speaker after speaker has pointed out, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) and Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) pointed out, the local authorities, faced with these cuts on top of the other, will do one of two things—Either they will reduce the existing service or they will put up the rates. That brings me to inquire what good it does, for the purpose of making devaluation work, which is the supposed purpose of this horrible exercise, to put money from taxation on to the rates. The election pledge was to put the money for teachers' salaries from rates to taxation. But, by now, the breach of pledge has become an exercise in self-indulgence.
What about the objectives? How will it make devaluation work to cut back building programmes? And they are not the building programmes solely of the secondary schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) talked about the primary schools, but, as the article in the Economist pointed out, the effect of the cuts of the building programme of the primary schools is inevitably that one concentrates what little money there is left on precisely those growing suburban areas which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) indicted, and there will be little enough left for the slum schools in the centre of cities or the areas where primary schools, according to Plowden, need improvement. That is what we mean when we say that there has been a total disregard of priorities—

Mr. Frank Hooley: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his party's only contribution to these slum schools was to collate a report which it dared not publish?

Mr. Hogg: We allocated millions of pounds to improvements—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] As hon. Members know,

and let me repeat to the House, since the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) chooses to sneer—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is the right hon. Gentleman who is sneering."] I have not been sneering: I have been insulting, I hope.
I repeat, when we were responsible we managed to expand on educational advance from about 3 per cent. of the lower national income which we inherited to over 5 per cent. of the higher national income which we handed over. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, did not make a particularly good intervention.
What about the second objective of devaluation? Presumably the right hon. Gentleman, by his cuts, wants to impress somebody—to impress our creditors abroad and improve the standing of the £. How does he think that it will improve the standing of the £ to hold back primary school building or postpone the age at which pupils leave school—from an age which is lower than that commonly compulsory in Europe to an age which would bring it up to their level? How will that impress anybody? How does the right hon. Gentleman think that it will impress anybody to cut the rise in student grants by one-half?
The world is looking to see not these mean and miserable cuts on the young and on education. The world knows that a modern State requires an expanding educational system. The world is waiting to see us organising our affairs in a more efficient and rational way. The sort of cuts which the world wants to see are on the railway deficits and indiscriminate subsidies. Instead, only the children are sacrificed by the present Government. But, then, children have no votes—not yet.
We explore further the question of priorities. The right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends—because he did have two rather half-hearted hon. Friends here earlier—supported the view that it was better to postpone the raising of the school-leaving age to the raising of the price of school meals. I fought for the school meals subsidy in my time and, by and large, I won. The last time that the price of school meals was raised before the present was in 1957.
One cannot have a fully employed society, with the average wage rising by over 3½per cent. a year, and yet justify,


at the end of 10 years, the maintenance of the same subsidised price for school meals as a preferable alternative to postponing a prized and almost universally desired educational improvement. That is an absured priority to choose. To pretend, as the hon. Member for Epping did, that children are ashamed to get their school meals free, and to use that against the priority, shows an ignorance of the state of affairs which, in a school teacher, I find surprising. I say that because they get them free now and all that is suggested is not to alter the system, but to raise the price.
I will not enter into an elaborate disquisition on the question of arithmetic, but I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he need not suppose, as he tried to lead the House to suppose, that, had the price been raised, the diminution in uptake would have been lasting. Our experience is—and there is now experience of several rises in price since the war—that although following a rise in price there is a diminution in uptake, which no one could regret more than I do, it is of very short duration indeed.
Then, of course, we were told at the time of the Prime Minister's promise that there would be no sacred cow, or no kine that were sacred—[HON. MEMBERS: "What? "] Kine—the plural of cow. Let us, therefore, look at one old "Buttercup" in the meadow. We were told that the basic school building programme would be increased by extra sums of £8 million for 1968–69 "to ensure that the comprehensive reorganisation was not held up ".
We know that comprehensive re-organisation is a "Buttercup ", a sacred cow, and here she is making enough noise for a whole field full of bulling heifers—[Interruption.] I was not referring to the hon. Gentleman by name, although I must say that he makes enough noise for old "Buttercup ". But even this is a fraud because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the fact of the matter is that the re-organisation programme is bound to be affected, too.
No one denies that these cuts have been educationally most damaging. And let not the right hon. Gentleman doubt for a moment that education is and remains high in our scale of values and of social priorities. It is the right of the child.
It is the need of the modern industrial society. Above all, a democracy fails to educate the next generation properly at its own peril. Speaking for myself, I shall not be satisfied until we have an educational structure with not merely a primary system that bears comparison with the world, or a secondary system with a school-leaving age equal to that in Europe, but with a system in which every child has some further education, and at least 25 per cent.—and, I hope, more —of each generation have higher education.
The fact is that when we are face to face with these social services cuts we are face to face with the fact that, even by their own standards, the Government have failed. Many of the other cuts were welcomed by hon. Members opposite below the Gangway—devaluation, they cheered; defence cuts, they cheered; other things, they thought were good—but when we come to the social security cuts even they can hardly fail to notice the ultimate truth that if we get our economic policy wrong we cannot achieve any sort of social progress.
That is why the only abiding educational advances in this country in this century—the Acts of 1902, 1918 and 1944, and the Acts of the last Conservative Government—were all sponsored by Conservative Ministers. By any criterion one chooses to mention, the years of Conservative Government were years of the most rapid advance internally in the history of the country, and the years of the exploded myths of the party opposite have been years of unremitting failure until the Government are compelled to confess that, even by their own standards, they have broken their promises and that their prophecies remain unfulfilled.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) began by giving me greetings on St. Valentine's Day and saying how much he had enjoyed speaking in the same debates as I when I was at the Home Office. When he speaks in his capacity of shadow Home Secretary I very often enjoy his speeches as much as he enjoys them himself. I am afraid that I cannot say that of his speech on education


tonight. If I may give him a little advice, it would be to confine his speeches to Home Office affairs rather than to education.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went out of his way to defend the educational views of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle). I grant him that the right hon. Member for Handsworth knows more about education than most hon. Members opposite, but I have not always noticed enthusiastic support by hon. Members opposite for the policies put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went out of his way to be grossly insulting to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I think I can pass over those remarks, and deal with a point to which I shall come back later, in order to answer some of the points he made about the educational progress of the last few years.
I want to put the right hon. and learned Gentleman right about the figure which my right hon. Friend used and which he challenged. So far as I can make out, the only figure which has been challenged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that which was quoted by my right hon. Friend when he said that the education economies amount to 2 per cent. in 1968–69 and 2½ per cent. in 1969–70 of the totals previously planned. He went on to say that the corresponding figures for roads were 8½ per cent. and 10 per cent. There was some extraordinary arithmetic which I simply do not understand. I think I am even a little better at arithmetic than my right hon. Friend because I managed to do this sum in my head.
If hon. Members look at the table at the back of the White Paper on Public Expenditure, they will see that expenditure on education for 1967–68 was £1,989 million. The reductions in 1968–69 are to be £39 million. If it will make it easier for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to call the £1,989 million, £2,000 million and the £39 million, £40 million, that is one-fiftieth. My arithmetic makes one-fiftieth 2 per cent.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Lady was not following my argument.

Miss Bacon: No, I was not.

Mr. Hogg: Let me put it in a sentence again. The cuts for the year which she quoted on the educational vote amounted to £39 million—if it helps her she can call it £40 million—and the total cuts are £325 million. That is what I call disproportionate.

Miss Bacon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should look at these figures again. Before the speech to which we have just listened, we had a great many thoughtful speeches from both sides of the House. It would be very discourteous of me if, instead of trying to answer some of the points which have been made, I dealt with all the arguments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just deployed.
I agreed with some of the speech of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), who has been a teacher and who knows what he is talking about. However, I did not agree with the hon. Gentleman when he said that he thought that the leaving age should never be raised until all the primary schools were perfect. If we waited for that, we should wait a very long time indeed. I well understand how he feels about the primary schools and I agreed with much of what he said.

Mr. Jennings: The right hon. Lady is purporting to quote me. I have never used the word "perfect ". I said "until the primary schools are put right ".
Miss Bacon: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not say "perfect ". But "until the primary schools are put right ". I took careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said about books in schools. If we have influence with local authorities in this matter, I will see that this matter is brought to their attention.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne East (Mr. Rhodes) raised points about the Northern Region. I assure them that I understand the conditions in their area. I live very close to it and I visit it regularly. We know that there is this difference between the North and the South with regard to early leaving. It is not only a simple difference between the north and the south of the country. In Leeds, part of which city I have the honour to represent, there is a difference between the north of the city and the south of the city. There can be


these differences within cities. There are many reasons for early leaving, and from the evidence which my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend presented and from other evidence which I have seen it is clear that social background is a factor. It is also true that children stay on longer in comprehensive schools.
I listened very carefully to the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, but 1 do not think that he would expect me to say that the Government could embark upon a policy of raising the leaving age in one area and not in the rest of the country. We have taken note, too, of what my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend said about university provision in the North.
Several hon. Members raised the question of expenditure by local authorities. I repeat what my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have said, that the Government felt that it was only right that some savings should be made by local authorities as well as by the Government, but the growth over the next year or so will be restricted to 3 per cent. We cannot direct local authorities about their spending, but we shall try to ensure that vital education services remain intact to as great a degree as possible in local authorities. I think that the last thing that local authorities should do is in any way to reduce the employment of teachers.
I am sorry that I missed the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), but I understand that he made some excellent points. I assure him that in-service training will continue and will be expanded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) raised the question of education priority areas. The bids by local education authorities for a share of the £16 million have now been examined in the Department. Decisions on the allocations will be made shortly and authorities can expect to hear the results early in March.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) also raised the question of expenditure by local authorities. I assure him that the Government certainly will keep a careful watch to ensure that local

authority education services do not bear a disproportionate burden beyond the intended cutback. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has already issued a circular to local authorities making it clear that there must be real savings in their road programmes. We do not expect education to suffer to save the road programme.
I was very interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and particularly in his views about the teaching of immigrants.
I must deal with some of the points rather quickly because so many were raised. Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) and the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) raised the question of students' grants. As my right hon. Friend explained, he is having talks with the students to see whether some of the hardships can be mitigated for the poorer students. I hope that something can be done as a result of the talks, and I would again emphasise that the students have behaved very responsibly.
I want to spend a little time on the school building programme and the effect on re-organisation. Not only in the House today but in various organs of both the national and educational Press some concern and confusion has been expressed about the school building programme. I am not surprised, because it is a difficult and confusing problem, as the right hon. Member for Handsworth realises.
Every year the local authorities submit bids for the following year's allocations, and they put them in order of priority. But the Department must weigh the priorities of one authority's area against those of others. For years, the top priority has had to be given to areas where there is a shortage of school places. In addition, there is a minor works allocation, a block annual allocation from which local authorities can spend as they wish on projects up to £20,000. But it is very rare that local authorities start all the projects allocated to them in that year. Usually, some remain not only from the previous year but perhaps from two or three years back. This is the backlog, which at present amounts to £70 million. There has been some misunderstanding about


that backlog and the circular which my right hon. Friend has sent out.
In addition to the basic allocations there have been recent additions of £3½ million for minor works in development areas and £8 million in each of two years for the educational priority areas. There was also allocated £36 million for each of the three years 1968–71 for the raising of the school-leaving age, a total of £108 million for the three years. What has happened—and I want to stress this because there has been a great deal of misunderstanding—is that the postponement of the raising of the school leaving age has meant withdrawal of the first two years of the allocation for the raising of the school-leaving age, meaning a saving of capital expenditure of about £70 million in two years only. We are proceeding on the assumption that there will be a third year's allocation for this purpose.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to answer a very detailed and rather technical question. I think that what he was asking was whether all the £36 million for the first year of the raising of the school-leaving age would have been spent in that year and, if not, whether we would be saving the whole of that amount. As he knows, it is impossible to answer this precisely, because allocations for the raising of the school-leaving age have not been completely separate from other building. But, if all that money had not been spent in the first year it would have been carried forward and spent in the second year, so that looked at over the two years there is this saving.
We have asked local authorities to review their programmes for 1968–69. We have done this for three reasons. First, it is difficult to separate the raising of the school-leaving age projects from others. Secondly, local authorities themselves might have different priorities in the changed circumstances. Thirdly, and very important, local authorities have been geared over the last year or so to build for the raising of the school-leaving age, and they could easily have decided to begin so much of the backlog in this coming year that there would have been no capital savings. But the total amount by which the school building programme will be reduced will be £7 million less than the amount earmarked

for the raising of the school-leaving age in these two years.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth asked me whether the backlog has not been wiped out. No approvals have been withdrawn. The only problem is, in each area, "Will the project start?" For that reason, the local authorities have been asked to review their priorities. But the right hon. Gentleman thought that the backlog has been completely wiped out. That is not so.

E. Boyle: I did not say that. I said that the whole of the backlog for the first time has to be resubmitted and that this must lead to indefinite postponement of a number of projects, particularly improvement projects which local authorities said they had. They no longer have an absolutely assured place in this coming year's programme.

Miss Bacon: The last part of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention is true, but not the first part. In his speech, he asked me whether or not a place like London would suffer because it had no backlog. We realise that some local authorities have been depending on the raising of the school-leaving age, allocation for re-organisation on comprehensive lines. That is why we have allocated £7 million in each of two years for England and Wales and £1 million for Scotland in order to help those local authorities which might have particular difficulties with regard to secondary re-organisation.
Now I come to the question of direct grant schools. Altogether, 179 grammar schools receive a grant direct from the Department. Up to now, this grant has been £52 a year for children aged between 11 and 19, with an additional grant of £84 for each sixth-form pupil. In addition, the Government make up the fees on an incomes scale for day pupils whose parents cannot afford the fees. The total amount spent in the current year is £7·8 million on about 100.000 pupils—the equivalent of a grant of about £78 per pupil. The Government cuts will reduce this to £58 per pupil.
Several hon. Members have said that the local authorities will bear the main burden. The local authorities take up 60 per cent. of the places in the direct grant schools, but I do not think that we can say that they are going to bear


a very great burden in this because, if they continue to take up all the places they take up now, they will be paying £140 per year per child.
But when a local authority takes up a place in another local authority school, it costs £164 for each child up to the age of 16 and £289 a year for those over the age of 16, so that those local authorities which take places in direct grant schools are still getting a bargain compared with what they would have to pay if they were providing the places themselves, I think that it is only right that, if we are to have cuts in education, parents who can afford to pay should bear some of the curs.
I join with those hon. Members who have said that they regret the postponement of the higher school leaving age. We all regret it. I have been a teacher and I have seen many children leave school at 14, with all that that means in wasted talent. Apart from the waste of talent, I regretted the fact that children were projected into industry at too early an age.
But the debate about the postponement for two years has led in some quarters to a discussion of the whole principle of the raising of the school-leaving age. I want to make it clear that the Government regard it as a postponement for two years and do not agree with the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), who would like the raising of the school-leaving age to be abandoned altogether.
My right hon. Friend has said that he is considering the single leaving date. I make no secret of the fact that I am very keen on this, because I know that having different leaving dates in a year, quite apart from the effect on those who leave in the middle of the year, disrupts the whole of the year for those who stay until the summer.
What is the Motion about? The hon. Member for Burton said that he had read it carefully and did not know whether it was talking about the cuts in education in relation to the other cuts, or about the priorities within the education service. If the Opposition are saying that education is bearing a disproportionate share, they are saying that less money should have been saved on education. They accept

that Government expenditure should be reduced and they have been saying so for months past.
Of course, a good case can be made for having no reduction in education expenditure. A good case can be made for having no cuts in the Health Service, or in house building. Some of my hon. Friends feel that all the cuts should have come from the defence budget, but that is not the view of the Opposition who, in their Amendment of 27th January, deplored the cuts in defence. If they deplore the cuts in defence, obviously more cuts have to be made on the home front. Where would they be made? In hospital building? By having fewer houses? In social security benefits? They have been very coy about this.
However, if the Motion means that we have the wrong priorities within the education service, where would they have cut within the education service? The education priority areas? The basic school building programmes? The training of teachers? Universities? The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone says that the cuts would be made in school meals, the only suggestion which we have heard from the Opposition in the whole debate. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew that school meals were to go up from Is. to ls. 6d. in April. The Opposition would like another 6d. increase so that the cost would be 2s. Apart from the fact that their arithmetic is wrong, school meals are not a matter for arithmetical calculation. A principle is involved. If we were to put up the price school meals to 2s. we would price them out of the range of many parents whose children do not qualify for free school meals, and this is a course which the Government reject.
Nowadays, children travel greater distances to school. With the disappearance of the small village school and with bigger comprehensive schools, children are travelling further to school and cannot get home for a meal. It is not a choice between a school meal and a nourishing meal at home. If we price children completely out of school meals, the choice will be between no dinner and sandwiches.
The Opposition are not in a very good position in moving this Motion. Their record in education is not particularly


good. From 1951 to 1964 the town halls and county halls were littered with Circulars containing cuts and economies in education. If I had time I could quote just a few from 1951 to 1961.

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Hoggrose—

Miss Bacon: The right hon. Member for Handsworth talking about the raising of the school-leaving age said that this was envisaged and legislated for in 1964. He went on to say that in 1964 he announced that the school-leaving age would be raised. He missed out one important date, and that was 1947, when the school-leaving age was raised to 15 by a Labour Government shortly after the war.
It is easy to announce a date in the last days of a dying Parliament, but it has been left to this Government to provide the resources. Let me give a few figures. The number of teachers in training in 1963–64 was 21,200. In 1967–68 it was 36,400.

Sir E. Boyle: Sir E. Boylerose—

Miss Bacon: The number of university students in 1963–64 was 104,000, the number in 1967–68 was 167,000. New entrants to the universities were 29,000 in 1963–64 and 47,000 in 1967–68. The

starts in the school-building programme for 1963–64 was £87 million. In 1967–68 they were £127 million. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), whose speech I missed, made certain remarks. I want to tell him that his figures are wrong. In 1963–64 public expenditure on education as a percentage of the gross national product was 5·1 per cent. and had risen to 5·8 per cent. in 1966–67. In the three years 1961 to 1964 school-building starts were to the value of £253 million. In the three years 1965 to 1968 they were £331 million.

We all regret the need to save money on education. But we shall still be spending more. The total sum spent by the Tories in 1963–64 was £1,354 million, and in spite of the cuts this year's expenditure will be £2,000 million. If I thought that the savings on education had permanently damaged the structure of the education service I would not be standing at this Box tonight. This Motion has been moved, not out of deep concern for our children, but for party political ends.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 323.

Division No. 52.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Carlisle, Mark
Gibson-Watt, David


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Astor, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Channon, H. P. G.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Awdry, Daniel
Chichester-Clark, R.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Baker, W. H. K.
Clark, Henry
Goodhart, Philip


Balniel, Lord
Clegg, Walter
Goodhew, Victor


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cooke, Robert
Gower, Raymond


Batsford, Brian
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Grant, Anthony


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Corfield, F. V.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Bell, Ronald
Costain, A. P.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grieve, Percy


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Grouch, David
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Crowder, F. P.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bessell, Peter
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gurden, Harold


Biffen, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Dance, James
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Blaker, Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Boardman, Tom
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Body, Richard
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bossom, Sir Clive
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hastings, Stephen


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hawkins, Paul


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Doughty, Charles
Hay, John


Braine, Bernard
Drayson, C. B.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Brewis, John
du Cann, Rt. Hon. Edward
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Eden, Sir John
Heseltine, Michael


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Higgins, Terence L.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Hiley, Joseph


Bryan, Paul
Farr, John
Hill, J. E. B.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Fisher, Nigel
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Holland, Philip


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fortescue, Tim
Hooson, Emlyn


Burden, F. A.
Foster, Sir John
Hordern, Peter


Campbell, Gordon
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Hornby, Richard




Howell, David (Guildford)
Miscampbell, Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Hunt, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Monro, Hector
Sharples, Richard


Iremonger, T, L.
Montgomery, Fergus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
More, Jasper
Silvester, Frederick


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sinclair, Sir George


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, John


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stainton, Keith


Jopling, Michael
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Murton, Oscar
Stodart, Anthony


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Neave, Airey
Summers, Sir Spencer


Kershaw, Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Tapsell, Peter


Kimball, Marcus
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Nott, John
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Kitson, Timothy
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Teeling, Sir William


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Temple, John M.


Lane, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Langford-Holt, sir John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pardoe, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Peel, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Percival, Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Peyton. John
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Longden, Gilbert
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Loveys, W. H.
Pink, R. Bonner
Wall, Patrick


Lubbock, Eric
Pounder, Rafton
Walters, Dennis


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Ward, Dame Irene


MacArthur, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Weatherill, Bernard


Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Prior, J. M. L.
Webster, David


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pym, Francis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McMaster, Stanley
Ramsden. Rt. Hn. James
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maddan, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Maginnis, John E.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Ridsdale, Julian
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Marten, Neil
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Woodnutt, Mark


Maude, Angus
Robson Brown, Sir William
Worsley, Marcus


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wright, Esmond


Mawby, Ray
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wylie, N. R.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Royle, Anthony
Younger, Hn. George


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Russell, Sir Ronald



Mills, Peter (Torrington)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Mr. C. W. Elliott and




Mr. Reginald Eyre.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dell, Edmund


Albu, Austen
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dempsey, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Buchan, Norman
Dewar, Donald


Alldritt, Walter
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Archer, Peter
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dickens, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dobson, Ray


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Doig, Peter


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Cant, R. B.
Dunn, James A.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Carmichael, Neil
Dunnett, Jack


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Barnes, Michael
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dun woody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Barnett, Joel
Chapman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Baxter, William
Coe, Denis
Edelman, Maurice


Beaney, Alan
Coleman, Donald
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphllly)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Concannmon, J. D.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bence, Cyril
Conlan, Bernard
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ellis, John


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
English, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Crawshaw, Richard
Ennals, David


Binns, John
Cronin, John
Ensor, David


Bishop, E. S.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Blackburn, F.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Faulds, Andrew


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dalyell, Tam
Fernyhough, E.


Booth, Albert
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Boston, Terence
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Boyden, James
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foley, Maurice


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ford, Ben


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Forrester, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Fowler, Gerry


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Delargy, Hugh
Freeson, Reginald




Galpern, Sir Myer
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Randall, Harry


Gardner, Tony
McBride, Neil
Rankin, John


Garrett, W. E.
McCann, John
Rees, Merlyn


Ginsburg, David
MacColl, James
Reynolds, G. W.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
MacDermot, Niall
Rhodes. Geoffrey


Gourlay, Harry
Macdonald, A. H.
Richard, Ivor


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McGuire, Michael
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Gregory, Arnold
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackie, John
Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackintosh, John P.
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanslly)
Maclennan, Robert
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Roebuck, Roy


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rose, Paul


Hamling, William
MacPherson, Malcolm
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hannan, William
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ryan, John


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Haseldine, Norman
Manuel, Archie
Sheldon, Robert


Hattersley, Roy
Mapp, Charles
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Hazell, Bert
Marks, Kenneth
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marquand, David
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Heffer, Eric S.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Henig, Stanley
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mayhew, Christopher
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hilton, W. S.
Melfish, Robert
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian
Skeffington, Arthur


Horner, John
Millan, Bruce
Slater, Joseph


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Small, William


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Snow, Julian


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Spriggs, Leslie


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Molloy, William
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Howie, W.
Moonman, Eric
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Hoy, James
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Stonehouse, John


Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swain, Thomas


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Swingler, Stephen


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, Roland
Taverne, Dick


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hunter, Adam
Murray, Albert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Irvine, Sir Arthur
Neal, Harold
Thornton, Ernest


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Newens, Stan
Tinn, James


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Tuck, Raphael


Janner, Sir Barnett
Norwood, Christopher
Urwin, T. W.


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Ogden, Eric
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Malley, Brian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Oram, Albert E.
Wallace, George


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Orbach, Maurice
Watkins, David (Consett)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Orme, Stanley
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas
Weitzman, David


Jones, Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(w.Ham,S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Padley, Walter
Whitaker, Ben


Judd, Frank
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Kelley, Richard
Paget, R. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Kenyon, Clifford
Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Kerr, Russell (Feitham)
Park, Trevor
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lawson, George
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Leadbitter, Ted
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ledger, Ron
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lee, John (Reading)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pentland, Norman
Winnick, David


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prentice, Rt, Hn. R. E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Lipton, Marcus
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Yates, Victor


Lomas, Kenneth
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)



Loughlin, Charles
Price, William (Rugby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Luard, Evan
Probert, Arthur
Mr. Eric G. Varley and


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DERBYSHIRE)

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Trevor Park: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Derby Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 44), dated 12th January 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be annulled.
The purpose of the Order is to transfer 11,000 acres of the rural districts of Be1per, Repton and South-East Derbyshire from the administrative County of Derbyshire to the County Borough of Derby. The population of the area affected is about 90,000, and the rateable value involved is over £3 million.
For Derbyshire, it means the loss of over twice the acreage, nearly three times the population, and almost four times the rateable value that it lost last year as a result of the Sheffield Order, which was resisted strenuously in this House.
This is no minor boundary adjustment, but a sweeping change of a most fundamental character carrying with it very serious implications for the future of local government and the prospects of local people in county and county borough alike. Yet this change is being forced on the people of the area concerned against their most clearly expressed wishes.
This has been admitted by Sir George Curtis, who presided over the public local inquiry, and, indeed, it has been admirably documented by him in his Report to the Minister. It has been accepted by no less a person than the Town Clerk of the County Borough of Derby on behalf of his authority and, so far as I am aware, no one—certainly not my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—has ever sought to deny it.
The results of the postal plebiscite in the rural districts affected were overwhelmingly opposed to transfer to the county borough. I take a few of them at random. Within the rural district of South-East Derbyshire, in the Alvaston and Boulton parish, on an 86 per cent, poll, 88 per cent. voted against the proposals for transfer to the county borough. In the parish of Chaddesden, on a 77 per cent. poll, 83 per cent. voted against

transfer to the county borough. In the parish of Spondon, on an 80 per cent. Poll, 88 per cent. Voted against these proposals.
Not only does this opinion exist in South-East Derbyshire; it also exists within the rural districts of Belper and Repton, which may be of interest to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. In the parish of Allestree, in the Belper rural district, on an 85 per cent. poll, 96 per cent. of the people voted against transfer to the county borough. In the parish of Mackworth, on a 67 per cent. poll, 74 per cent. voted against these proposals.
The evidence of the wishes of the inhabitants is completely overwhelming. At the public meetings over which Sir George Curtis presided, during the course of his inquiry, 93 speakers were against transfer to the borough and only two could be found who were willing to support it. At the inquiry itself the overwhelming weight of evidence, both oral and written, came from the opponents of the change and not one member, nor one officer even, of the County Borough of Derby gave evidence in its support. Here, if ever there was one, is an example of totally irresponsible and completely irrational bureaucracy in operation. I shall wait with interest to hear the way in which my hon. Friend seeks to justify it.
I now pass to another aspect on this question—that of administrative and financial efficiency. If people's wishes are to be brushed aside, is it possible to justify this Order in terms either of saving money or of improving the standard of their local government services?
Let us take, first, the financial point. The rates levied by the County Borough of Derby are in every case higher—in some cases considerably higher—than the rates levied in the areas affected by this Order. Ratepayers in these areas will, as a consequence of the Order, have to bear an increase of 6d. in the £ next year, and even greater increases in years to come. Ratepayers who remain in the diminished South-East Derbyshire rural district will have to pay an extra 1s. in the £, again as a direct consequence of this Order, and ratepayers in other parts of the county will have to pay an indeterminate amount more.
All these rate increases, all this added expenditure, are taking place at a time when, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, it is essential, because of the national economic situation, that increases in rates be held to the minimum. Does my right hon. Friend really expect the people of Derbyshire to take kindly to the Government's appeals for incomes restraint when, by a stroke of the pen, he subjects them to rises in their living costs in this way?
If the Order cannot be justified in terms of finance—and I have shown that it cannot be—there is even less justification for it in terms of administrative efficiency. Many local government services, such as education, are now pro-vided by the county on a regional basis. In the areas affected by this Order they will have to be replaced by services provided by the County Borough of Derby, which is a much smaller unit, and in the view of many of us, a considerably less efficient one.
It is well known that Derby Corporation's office accommodation is inadequate for the responsibilities which the county borough will have to assume. Whole departments are having to be dispersed throughout the town, and the county borough has found it necessary to seek the assistance of the county council in carrying out certain administrative services until such time as the borough feels it is well enough equipped to take them over. This is not, I submit, a very happy augury for what is likely to happen in terms of administrative efficiency if the Order is implemented. At a time when all the experts are agreed that the trend of the future will be more and more in the direction of regional administration, and larger types of local government structures, it makes no sense at all to take this step backwards into the past.
I come, now, to my final argument, the one which is most important of all. This Order is the product of a process of local government reform which the Government themselves have admitted to be gravely deficient, and which they abandoned more than two years ago. The Commission which proposed the changes contained in the Order no longer exists. It was abandoned because the Government realised that its terms of reference

were too narrow for it to make a success of the job.
Its place has been taken by the Royal Commission on Local Government, which has a much wider task, and which is expected to report in the autumn of this year. We do not yet know what the report will contain, but it is abundantly clear that if the Commission is to discharge its work effectively it cannot consider itself bound by the recommendations of its predecessor, otherwise there would have been no point in setting it up. The prospect, therefore, is that if the Order is approved tonight the areas concerned may well have to face not one upheaval but two, and no sooner will they have settled down after the first change than they will be faced with all the problems and difficulties arising out of a second one.
It is conceivable that a situation could arise in which the changes proposed in the Order could be totally reversed by the Royal Commission, and the principle of regional administration, which is now being abandoned, could be reintroduced. On 24th May, 1966, the Prime Minister told the House that, on the big issues of principle, it would be better to await the report of the Royal Commission rather than proceed on the existing recommendations on local government boundaries. I suggest to my hon. Friend that transferring 90,000 people from three-tier county administration to all-purpose county borough control at a time when the futures of counties and county boroughs alike are in the melting pot raises what my right hon. Friend called big issues of principle, and that, on these grounds, the Order should be withdrawn.
Only two days ago, the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to this debate, replied to an Adjournment debate on Worcestershire County Council expenses. He defended the decision of his right hon. Friend the Minister not to give effect to the recommendations of county reviews and quoted his right hon. Friend's remarks on 3rd May last year, when he said:
I shall be announcing final decisions shortly on the county reviews now before me and here too my approach will be to give effect only to those individual proposals which are generally agreed and urgently needed in


advance of any wider reorganisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 89.]
The Parliamentary Secretary elaborated on this theme, saying:
The situation changed with the knowledge that the Royal Commission was proceeding more rapidly than we had hoped, and we had the undertaking that the report was likely in the autumn of this year. When my right hon. Friend the now Leader of the House made his statement it all he could say was that it was expected that the Royal Commission would take about two years. The fact that it is making such excellent progress has created a new situation and it was in the light of that that the Minister decided on the policy announcement to which reference has been made and parts of which I have read out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 1110.]
Why does my hon. Friend speak with one voice to Worcestershire, and a totally different one to the County of Derbyshire?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: He may change his mind tonight.

Mr. Park: I hope that he does.
Why does he seek to impose a standstill on Monday night and then come to the House and perform a somersault by advocating sweeping changes on Wednesday night? This is not statesmanship, but absolute farce. If the changes in Worcestershire are to be held up because they are not generally agreed or urgently needed, why should not the Derbyshire changes be similarly suspended until the Royal Commission has reported, since they, too, are neither generally agreed nor urgently needed in any way?
In resisting these proposals, we are not resisting change, but seeking to expedite it on a more radical basis. We are not trying to perpetuate a local government structure which may have become out-dated in counties and county boroughs alike, but to prevent impediments to the establishment of a new structure being created. This Order, by prejudicing the speedy implementation of the Commission's report, would constitute such an impediment.
I appeal to my hon. Friend, even at this late stage, to withdraw his proposal. If he is not prepared to do so, we shall not hesitate to divide the House on this matter. Why the Government think it

appropriate to put on the Whips on issues of this kind, I do not know—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Shame.

Mr. Park: These are not primarily party questions at all. To insist on a whipped vote in these circumstances seems precisely the kind of conduct which brings both the House and the party system generally into disrepute. I call on hon. Members on both sides to ignore their Whips tonight and, in the interests of democracy, efficient administration and plain common sense, to give their support to the Motion.

Mr. Speaker: I want to call as many hon. Members as possible who represent Derbyshire, and I shall be able to do so if hon. Members are reasonably brief.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I intervene in the debate with a great deal of diffidence, as I am a very newly-elected Member for the County of Derby, and I do not pretend to understand all the intricacies of what has gone on in that county in days gone by.
I take up what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) said concerning the putting on of the Whips on his side. I can assure the House that, so far as I know, there is no question of any whipping on this side of the House, and I hope that as many of my hon. Friends as are persuaded by the arguments against the Order will join me in the Lobby, for I intend to vote with the hon. Member opposite against the Order.
I oppose the Order on two grounds, first, because I believe that my constituents will be affected adversely by the operation of the Order should it come into being. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I know from past experience, is a very flexible man, will listen to the arguments we put forward tonight and realise the hardships which could be caused by the Order. My constituency is not directly affected, in that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary knows, there is no part of it going into the county borough. We are affected, however, because the County of Derby will lose about £3 million, give or take £100,000 either way, in rateable value, and this will have to be made up in the precepts


of the boroughs and all the councils throughout the county in the coming years.
It has been calculated that an increase of about 2d. or 2½,d. in the £ is likely to have to be paid in increased rates by my constituents in the coming year, to make up for a certain proportion of the rateable value of the county to be lost to them by going to Derby. This is the basic reason why I believe that it is not in the interests of my constituents to allow this Order to go through.
My second reason is the obvious one that, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East said, the Royal Commission will be reporting in the near future. We do not know when that will be. It may be in the summer. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us when, within a month or two, he expects the report from the Royal Commission. I understand that it may report in the summer or early autumn. I hope that this will be so, and that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a definitive answer when this will be.
I do not know, either, what its conclusions will be, but I cannot help feeling that it is bound to edge towards the recommendation for larger local authorities, maybe on a regional basis. I would think that the existing pattern of local government, particularly in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire, will be completely and radically changed. If this is so it really does seem absolutely idiotic now, in 1968, to start reorganising and changing the services and the whole set-up as between the County Borough of Derby and the County of Derbyshire—when in three or two years, or even sooner, the pattern will be completely reorganised anyway.
This cannot but lead to an enormous waste of money. All kinds of services will be affected; the list of them is almost endless. The whole lot will be affected by this transfer from the county to the county borough. I have learned that there will be difficulties over accommodation; there will be difficulties over the transfer of powers; and difficulties for the County Borough of Derby in administering, with its old powers, its new areas, and this will cause dislocation which would be to the disadvantage of the citizens being transferred from the one to the other. It is bound to

reflect to a certain extent on my constituency by reason of re-organisation.
Those are the two main reasons for my opposition to the Order, but I would also point out that this is an enormous Order. There are 53 pages of it, and anything between eight and a dozen maps have been placed in the Library. I should have liked to have been able to go through the document. Various parts and paragraphs of it are not clear to me nor, I believe, to those who will have to operate the Order.
For instance, we read in Article 3(6):
Where the day or the last day on which anything is required or permitted by, or in pursuance of, this order to be done is a Sunday, Christmas Day, bank holiday….
I am not sure that this is necessary.
Again, we read in Article 5(6):
The boundaries established by this order shall be mered by Ordnance Survey.
What is the meaning of that phrase?
There are many other points to which I should have liked to have referred if we had had the time, but we have only 55 minutes left to us, and if all hon. Members who have an interest are to speak in that time we cannot deal properly with the subject. It is wrong of the Government to bring an Order like this to the House at this hour. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) on the Treasury Bench, because his constituency is affected. I am sure there are matters of detail, if not of principle, which he would like to take up with his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. Although time is short, I hope that we shall hear from him—

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): I say at once that although my constituency is affected, whereas that of the hon. Member is not, I have no doubt at all that this is the right Order, and that it should be made.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: As I sought to explain—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was doing me the courtesy of listening—my constituents are affected, not directly, as his are, but affected adversely. They will not get any benefit from the Order.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will listen to our arguments and, if he can, will withdraw the Order to allow


for re-consideration. I hope that he will say that he has further considered the matter, and will await the Report of the Royal Commission before starting to play around with the boundaries within the County of Derby.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak): I speak as Member for a Derbyshire constituency and as a constituent of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). On this occasion, at least, I am happy to endorse what he has said. He is right in saying that the Order will affect the interests of his constituents.
I have read quite a lot of the material relating to the Order and, as I understand it, the argument in its favour is not that the county council is ineffective as a local administrative unit, or that the services it provides for its ratepayers are inefficient. The same can be said of the rural district councils within the county. There is, therefore, no argument about the adequacy of the county as an administrative unit.
The chief inspector says that the county is "in the forefront of educational progress in the country, if not in the world." This is by no means an overstatement. I come relatively new to Derbyshire, but I am an educationist by profession. I have been agreeably surprised at the quality of the educational provisions even in a relatively sparsely populated county area. The county has pioneered two very valuable services, the museum service for schools and residential courses both for children and teachers. There must be thousands of children who are now in a position to enjoy these services who, when they are transferred to the county borough, will cease to enjoy them.
Derbyshire is unique in that it splits into three divisions. We are speaking tonight about the southern division, which will he seriously affected. About half the children who are covered by that division's administration will be transferred to the county borough administration. I draw attention to the evidence given by Mr. Longland, the county education on officer. He said that it was almost impossible to say how the situation arising from the transfer would be handled. It would be difficult and geographically inconvenient to absorb the

administration of the schools in the defunct South Derbyshire division into an adjoining divisional area. If this proposal were adopted, it would mean that the administration of an important part of Derbyshire would be less accessible and more remote.
My right hon. Friend should be reminded of the effects the proposals will have not only on the county authority but on certain rural district councils. These are not matters we can dismiss lightly. South-East Derbyshire will lose about 80 per cent. of its area, 64 per cent. of the population and 59 per cent. of rate-able value through these proposals. South-East Derbyshire has been an effective local authority and had undertaken its planning functions. There was no criticism at the public inquiry of the services the rural district council has provided. Now it is to be completely broken up and to lose 59 per cent. of its rate-able value. That is a disastrous change for any local authority to contemplate.
Not only will South-East Derbyshire he affected. Belper rural district will also be affected and the consequences for it will be dire. It will lose about 35 per cent. of its population and about 41 per cent. in rate-able value. I feel very much for the officers of that authority who will be placed in a very difficult position. In his letter to the local authorities, the Minister recognised that to some extent there would he adverse consequences. He said that he appreciated the effects which the change will have on the county councils and district councils concerned, particularly South-East Derbyshire Rural District Council. But he does not go on —and this is significant—to talk of the adverse consequences of the proposals on the county borough itself.
My hon. Friend has already touched upon some of these effects. The Town Clerk has stated publicly that the county borough has inadequate office accommodation. Certain departments, such as the health and auditing departments, are having to be taken out of the town hall and put into rented accommodation. I am also told—and this, too, is on public record, that the borough council is embarrassed by having to maintain and undertake services which previously were undertaken by the county and has requested the county to continue providing these services until a convenient time.
So it is not merely the county and rural district councils which are adversely affected. The county borough is, too.
My hon. Friend has referred to the consequences of the Royal Commission on Local Government, which is now sitting. I am at a loss to understand the thinking of the Minister in this context. I understand that, in six months' time, the Royal Commission will be reporting and, from what I hear, the pattern of administration it will recommend will be a regional pattern. It will not be similar to the pattern envisaged under this Order.
Thus, in two years' time, the extended Borough of Derby will be rescrambled. This is madness. I quote in support the words of the borough council itself:
The review of local government … must he carried out on a long term basis as the whole object was to establish a pattern that would last a lifetime.
This Order, if implemented, will not last a lifetime, but a mere two years, and the area will then have to be rescrambled. The weight of evidence is overwhelming and I invite my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the Order.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: It may be wondered why I should seek to intervene in a debate primarily concerning hon. Members from Derbyshire, but I had the honour to live in that part of the country for a number of years in Chellaston and Shelton Lock and I was also at one time chairman of the Melbourne and District Darts League, whose area extended into the Bridge Inn at Shelton Lock. When I married, I lived in Littleover and was evicted from a furnished house there—an experience which I do not wish to repeat.
I have fond memories of that part of the country, nevertheless, and have been considerably interested in the results of this Order, which I have been giving some study. I agree with what hon. Members have said about the cost of these proposals. It is obvious that, when one is making a transfer of this magnitude, it must be a very expensive operation. No doubt it will be nugatory expenditure because, in a short time, the Royal Commission will have reported and fundamental changes in the struc-

ture of local government will be put in hand.
There is one Article in the Order to show what I mean about the expenditure involved—and I agree with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) that we should have had more time to study the Order and to find out, if we could, what the effect of various Articles in it might be. Article 53, concerned with property liabilities, contracts, etc., gives an enormous list of obligations which are to be transferred from one authority to another and of property which is similarly to be transferred. One can imagine the enormous amount of work this will create for the local government officers concerned, which is of no benefit to the ratepayers or the inhabitants of the areas affected.
This reminds me of when we were discussing the re-organisation of local government in London, when it was falsely claimed by the then Government that the result would be great benefit and economies of administration, but we all know that that was not the case and that the result was higher rates and poorer services.
As I read this formidable Order I am convinced that the expense and the work involved will be detrimental to the services given by the local authorities to the inhabitants of the county borough and the county. The wishes of the inhabitants should not be lightly ignored. The Foreign Secretary, who graced us with his presence for a few moments at the beginning of the debate, said that his constituents were in favour of the Order.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: I am one of them.

Mr. Lubbock: Judging from the letters which I have received from Derbyshire County Council, the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants in every part of the county have objected to it, and I am surprised to hear the Foreign Secretary tell the House that his constituency is an exception to the rule.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: In view of the Foreign Secretary's intervention, ought we not to urge the Parliamentary Secretary to intervene in the middle of the debate, rather than at the end, to see what answer he can give to explain that inconsistency?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us proceed with the debate.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. This is a matter which affects the whole House. More than just Derbyshire is involved. There is a principle. Surely that was a proper question to put to an hon. Member addressing the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am aware of the importance of the Order to the whole House.

Mr. Lubbock: There was some inconsistency and it would be helpful to the House if the Parliamentary Secretary could clear it up before we reach the end of the debate so that hon. Members can comment on what he says.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I can give the hon. Gentleman the information which he so earnestly wishes to have. I have the figures before me. In the Belper rural district the results were: Allestree, 85 per cent. poll, 96 per cent. against this proposal; Darley Abbey, 83 per cent. poll, 94 per cent. against; Duffield, 83 per cent. poll, 93 per cent. against, Mack-worth, 67 per cent. poll, 74 per cent. against; Quarndon, 49 per cent. poll, 99 per cent. against.

Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those figures. It is shocking that the Foreign Secretary should purport to give the view of his constituents when he is so clearly contradicted by that information. The right hon. Gentleman should return to the Chamber and withdraw the false information which he has given to the House.
Another issue which I wish to raise concerns the delay following the Minister's decision letter. This letter was written last July, when the Minister said that it would be in the interests of more effective and convenient local government for the re-organisation to take place. That was the last time the Minister expressed a view on it, but it was not until this February that the Order was brought before the House. Therefore, this cannot be an urgent matter, or the Order would have been considered before the Summer Recess, or, at any rate, as soon as the House returned. The very fact that it is brought before the House only now indicates that it could not have been a matter of urgency. The Minister's de

cision letter contains no statement to suggest that it is.
It is a year since we debated a similar Order on the boundaries of Sheffield. At that time, hon. Members were asking the Government not to take hasty action because the Royal Commission was getting on very well with its work and would recommend far-reaching changes in the structure of local government changes which might be prejudiced in that area by too early a change. With the lapse of time, that argument has become stronger and it cannot now be said, as the Parliamentary Secretary then said, that after the Royal Commission report there will be a period of consultation and that it may be two years before legislation is introduced. If that was true then, the period has been reduced by a year. Is it in the interests of the people of Derbyshire and of the people of the City of Derby that there should be two upheavals within such a short time?
I cannot believe that any sensible person would agree with this proposition, particularly at times of such economic stringency. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a contribution towards backing Britain, which is now the theme accepted by the Government, and the Prime Minister himself, then he will withdraw the Order.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I intend to be mercifully brief. I want to appeal to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary under the terms of an Act which is far more fundamental than that which empowers him to act in this way in relation to this Order. I am, of course, referring to the "Old pal's act ". In other areas of political controversy we are associates and not antagonists. I appeal to him tonight, not in the light of any brief observations that I want to make, but in the light of the general argument, to change his mind about this Order. After all, to change one's mind in politics is the surest indication that one has a mind at all.
During the past three years there have been precedents for governmental changes of mind. Since our Government, which from time to time enjoys my support, have changed their mind on everything else, why should they jib at a change of


mind on this minor matter? I have no personal interest at all here. I belong to an area quaintly referred to in a document sent out by the South-East Derbyshire Rural District Council as the Ere-wash Valley Settlements. It makes us sound as though we were the last outpost of the Roman Empire. I am concerned with the general principle of the thing.
I want to put two questions which have arisen as a result of my going through the documentation. First, why the urgency of this change? Is the Derby County Borough tottering into bankruptcy? Does it face administrative chaos? Is it absolutely necessary tonight to come to its assistance by extending its boundaries in this way? I see no reason whatever for the urgency with which this Order has been presented. Secondly, if we appoint a Royal Commission, why is it necessary to act before it has even deliberated? As a matter of general principle, I do not like Royal Commissions. I would prefer a Select Committee of the House to examine such matters. Although I am not entirely in favour of Royal Commissions, if we do appoint one to do a job, we should wait for its deliberations.
This is the central argument, and it raises the question why should the Government act in advance of any recommendations which might come from the Royal Commission? My final point is this. There is a lot of feeling in Derbyshire about this Order. It is foolish to ignore local feeling on any question. I happen to believe that patriotism is a thing that is built up out of local feelings. We work and we strive not for an abstraction called Britain, but for our local street, our local town or village. We are flying in the face of something which, however intangible, is one of the most powerful forces in this nation if we fly in the face of the declared wishes of the people affected by this Order.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend: are the Government so afflicted with this terrible disease of masochism that they want to add to the unpopularity which we will certainly get after the Budget, by stirring up hostility in the, at present, Labour-controlled area of South-East Derbyshire? This I find totally ridiculous and I appeal to my hon. Friend to change his mind, on the grounds that this is precipitate, flies in

the face of local feeling, and defies every principle of a Royal Commission. It is absolutely nonsensical. When I am asked to support this Order, then the only thing that I can say both to the House and to the Government is "I am damned if I will ".

11.0 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: I, too, will be commendably brief. I am speaking not only as the Member for Burton which is no great distance away from Derby, but as a ratepayer in the rural district of Repton which is in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary. He is my Member of Parliament and, as a ratepayer there, I have a vested interest in the solution of this problem.
I am very keen that this Order should be defeated because I think its adoption would affect efficiency in the Repton Rural District Council which, for years, has been a highly efficient authority. It will have its opportunities for showing future efficiency dreadfully impaired by the cession of a large, and in terms of rate-able value, highly valuable area to the County Borough of Derby. That is my first point. Secondly, I have been engaged all my life in fighting for the small man; that is natural. I hate being dominated by the big fellow next to me and, therefore, I have learned to be belligerent about these matters. I was engaged some years ago in this House in fighting off the ambitions of the Stafford-shire County Council against the Borough of Burton. That is my second point.
I object to the big authority seizing the neighbouring small authority and impairing its efficiency, and I cannot understand why there is this apparent urgency for this Order when the whole of our local government system is being so thoroughly examined by a Royal Commission, which. I understand, will report by the end of this year. I am most anxious that the Parliamentary Secretary should tell us in straightforward terms why it is necessary to have this Order. We do not know what the Royal Commission will report. One can envisage that there will be a move towards larger units and that there will be a recommendation for the elimination of some councils except perhaps for sentimental, geographical reasons, with the substitution of central regional authorities


divided into smaller authorities of, say, 120,000 population. That would depend upon geographical considerations.
Yet, whatever happens, the whole of the work which this Order will put into operation will automatically he destroyed. This Order is sheer lunacy, and to borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister—and that is all I want to borrow from him, and I shall not include the adjective which he used—" This policy is sheer lunacy ". My fellow ratepayers with whom I live are against this Order.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Swain: I understand that one of the local authorities has advertised in the Press asking hon. Members to support its case tonight, and I am reminded that, when the House debated the Sheffield Order last year a great defence was put up by hon. Members from Sheffield. I want tonight to put the Derbyshire case.
This is a repetition of the Order last year and, as Orders go, it is unique. I am pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is present, because it was made by him when he was Minister of Housing. It was rubber-stamped by the present Minister, who, significantly, is not present to listen to the arguments against it. It has to be defended by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who has my deepest sympathy in all matters, and particularly in attempting to defend an Order as ludicrous and ridiculous as the Derby Order.
Mr. Speaker, you said at the beginning of the debate that you would do your best to call as many Derbyshire men as possible. I do not know whether that description could be applied to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), and I can hardly say that I am the first native of Derby to be called, because I am not, but my father rode a bicycle. However, I am affected by the Order because, although I live at the other end of the county in north Derbyshire, my rates will go up as a consequence of it. The smaller the rate-able value of the county after the Order has been approved, the greater will be the rate burden on every individual ratepayer for the county council to maintain the excellent services provided by it.
Reference has been made to three rural districts which are affected. As a long-serving member on the Derbyshire County Council before becoming a Member of Parliament, I know that the rural councils of Derbyshire are proud of their administrations. Derbyshire as a whole is very proud of its democratic three-tier system of government, mainly because the people of Derbyshire have had excellent service from their parish, rural and county authorities.
As my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) said, Derbyshire is the acme of perfection in providing educational services. I would remind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that, up to a few short months ago when a tragedy occurred in Derbyshire and the party opposite took over, a comprehensive system of education was being pushed forward faster than in any other county. We were pleased about that, because we believe in the Socialist system of comprehensive education. I know that many people disagree with that sentiment, but I know, too, that I am not alone in thinking that this was one of the excellent services provided by the county council.
I do not think that the wishes of the people have been given due consideration by the Ministry, and this is not the first time. The same thing happened in Sheffield. Some Ministers past and present consider the ratepayers and taxpayers of the country as numbers and not as human beings. In Derbyshire, they are considered to be human beings, even if they are not in areas which other hon. Members represent.
A plebiscite was taken in South-East Derbyshire, and an impressive result was gathered from the poll. We feel that the wishes of the people should have been considered when the Order was made.
I promised not to delay the House for too long and to allow this magnificent defence of the Order to take place. I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will join us in the Lobbies against the Government by voting for the Prayer. It will be another black mark against some of us, but I believe that this will be one of the most sincere votes that we shall ever cast in the House, because it will be cast in the interests of people who have no voice.
Before sitting down, however, I must defend my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I think that he was mis-understood by the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party. My right hon. Friend said, "I believe that this is a good Order ", meaning himself. He did not say that his constituents believed it. This is not the first time that my right hon. Friend has not reflected the views of his constituents. I said that he was speaking in the personal sense, and it is on very, very rare occasions that I defend my right hon. Friend. I hope that this Order will be turned down tonight, and turned down by a large majority.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. George H. Perry: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but merely to interject during the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park). I have lived in Derby County Borough for about 47 years and I know that for some considerable time the Derby County Borough has been trying to extend its boundaries. I had hoped to intervene during the course of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East, if he had referred to the fact that Derby should not extend its boundaries.
In the census in 1931 Derby's population was 142,000, but in 1968 the population of Derby is 125,000. This has been occasioned mainly by the fact that the Derby County Borough Council has had to build 7,000 houses outside the county borough.

Mr. Park: I wonder if my hon. Friend could explain how he is using that argument to justify his support for the Order? It seems to me—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief, particularly at this stage.

Mr. Park: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that what this argument is saying is that a large number of residents in the county borough prefer to live in the County rather than in the county borough?

Mr. Perry: I am pleased with that intervention. The fact remains that since 1931, which was 37 years ago, there has been a tremendous exodus from the county borough into the proposed ex

tended area. This has been occasioned mainly by virtue of the fact that the county borough could not find within itself room to build houses for its tenants or people affected by slum clearance, or what you will. This has been one of the reasons why Derby could not conform or hope to bring about any reasonable situation in this respect.
The fact remains that in Derby at present the population is 125,000, but the employed population in Derby is 117,000. This is a significant point. Ministry of Labour returns only recently showed that 117,000 people are employed in Derby itself, and yet the population of Derby is only 125,000. So it is obvious that thousands of people pour into Derby each day from this proposed extended area, and each day and each night people are coming into Derby itself to take part in social life—cinemas, theatres, football matches and so on.
This is bound to happen in an area like Derby. But, so far as I am concerned, there is not one blade of grass between Derby's Borough boundary and the actual intended area. Therefore in my opinion Derby is entitled, as it was in 1950 when it first set out to extend its boundaries through the House of Lords and failed in the Commons, to extend its boundaries, and to fulfil its rôle.

11.14 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): May I begin by thanking all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate for the very considerate way in which they have made their speeches.
When one realises the considerable feeling behind the Prayer against this Order, I want to say, as one who was for more than a decade in local government, that I very much appreciate this. I have had a good deal of experience of this sort of thing, not only as a councillor but as one who, from time to time, appeared at inquiries dealing with the re-organisation of local government and local government boundaries. One realises what a tremendous loyalty and affection is built up by those who live and work in an area, and certainly by those who serve upon its local authority.
In these matters we are, I believe, all conservatives—but may I emphasise, conservatives with a little "c "—in the sense that we know and conserve the things which we come to cherish. Bearing in mind that some of my hon. Friends have been members of one of the local authorities affected, and remembering their long experience in these matters, I should have been very surprised, and indeed disappointed, if they had not spoken so strongly against the Order.
But, having said that, I am entitled to quote in defence of the Order this fact: knowing the strength of feeling which has been expressed by many of the elected members of local authorities and of this House, there must be a pretty convincing reason for the Government to go ahead with the Order, in the light, not only of these feelings, but of the knowledge of the setting up of the Royal Commission and the excellent progress it has made. I assure my hon. Friends that unless the Government felt that there was an overwhelming case, not purely on administrative grounds, but also in the interests of local government and the inhabitants of the area concerned, we would not be proceeding with the Order. The very strength of their feelings indicates equally the conviction of the Government that there was a very strong case for going ahead with the proposal. May I say how gratified I am to find at least one Member who spoke in favour of the Order.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the apparent speed with which the Order has been presented. I must place this on record. If anyone can point to an instance of similar changes which have taken longer than this, I shall be glad to hear of it. The Local Government Commission gave notice in January, 1960, that its review in this area would begin in April of that year. It began, in the winter of 1960, to hold meetings with the county borough councils. It met the county district councils affected. It then considered these matters, and in September, 1962, it published its draft proposals. In April, 1963, the Commission held its statutory conference in Derby, as it was bound to do. Finally, in June, 1964, the Commission published its final proposals.
But even this was nowhere near the end of the matter, because in May, 1965.

there was a public local inquiry, presided over by Sir George Curtis, into all the objections which had been received. Only on 28th July, 1966, was the Minister's decision taken. It is inaccurate to say that these proceedings have been rapid, bearing in mind that there have been six years of consultations and public inquiries, in addition to the deputations that I have received. Even after the decision, the letter was written—

Mr. Ron. Lewis: Accepting everything that my hon. Friend has said —and may I say that I am sorry that I missed part of the debate, having been in the Committee on the Transport Bill —would not my hon. Friend agree that the Government gave an undertaking about this Order and said that they were only prepared to push through those proposals which were non-controversial? Yet, in spite of that undertaking, they are pushing the controversial ones through.

Mr. Skeffington: I shall deal with that point. I do not think it can be said that I am attempting to hog the time available. I wanted to hear as many Members as possible, and now I shall try to answer all the points which have been raised in the remaining 10 minutes left to me. The last thing that can be said of this procedure is that it has been unduly speedy. The matter has been looked at again and again, quite properly, although I must confess to the belief that a rather more speedy method will, in future, have to be adopted if we are to make the sort of chances which may well be required when the Royal Commission reports.
I ought to address myself to two of the major questions, although I will take up as many individual points as I can. The Order extends into certain areas the boundaries of the City of Derby. The first thing to be asked is whether it is a reasonable proposition that those areas should be added to the city in view of the general problems of which all hon. Members who have spoken on local government in the area are aware.
Here I must refer to two paragraphs of Report No. 8 of the Local Government Commission for England. The Commission inspected all the areas which are subject to the Order except one at Mackworth, which, after representations


were made, was taken out of the proposals. The Commission said, in paragraph 423:
We made an inspection of all the disputed places in the company of the authorities concerned. Our inspection left us convinced of the continuity of physical development across the present boundary … and that with the exception of Mackworth"—
which has been deleted—
all the places in dispute belonged to the town and not the country.… We found no difference in character between the housing areas on either side of the boundary, and although in some cases we could descry an old village street, the original village had been surrounded by a sea of suburban houses. We saw no more than minor shopping centres; the corporation motor and trolley buses serve all the areas and clearly the residents are greatly dependent on the shopping and entertainment facilities of the central area in the town.
That is long quotation, but it is important to put it on record that the areas to be included in the new city are similar.

Mr. Lubbock: Mr. Lubbockrose—

Mr. Skeffington: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I have been very patient. I have only eight minutes left and I want to answer a number of points. I can best serve the House by answering as many of the points as I can.
Despite that recommendation, which was made by the Local Government Commission, which visited the area with the officers of the authorities concerned and personally investigated all the circumstances, there was the statutory inquiry, to which I have reffered, presided over by the inspector, who, after hearing all the evidence put forward, in paragraphs 136 and 139—

Mr. Harold Neal: Will my hon. friend give way?

Mr. Skeffington: I really cannot give way—came to the same conclusion
I want now to refer to the effect of population moves before I come to the point about the Royal Commission. It is true that there has been considerable movement of population out of the old centre of the City of Derby. In 1949, the population of Derby was approximately 143,00. That was about its peak figure. Since then, the population of the borough has gradually declined to its present total about 128,000. There has been a steady movement of people out of Derby

to new houses across the boundary in one or other of the rural districts.
Many of those people have been council tenants who have been moved to houses which the Derby Corporation has built beyond its boundaries. Indeed, out of a total of 17,000 houses owned by Derby, about one-third of them—5,500 houses—have been built by Derby outside its boundaries and in the areas to which I have referred, knowing that they were virtually part of the community of the city.
I want to come to the point about the Royal Commission, although there are many other matters with which I should like to deal in the remaining five minutes. My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) gave some information which certainly was news to me. He said, I gather, that the Royal Commission would report in the sense that the future system of local government should be based on regions. That may be so. My hon. Friend's guess is as good as mine. It would, however, be quite wrong to let the impression go out from this House tonight that we have officially—or unofficially, for that matter—any intimation of what the Royal Commission will propose.
On the point affecting Derby itself, if the Order is passed by the House tonight, as I hope it will be, and if building across the city boundary takes place on areas already largely built up, or on areas which will have to be built on in the next few years, if Derby is to reach the housing target it has set itself, it is very unlikely that any reform of local government will cut back the boundary again to the built-up area. Whatever may be the future recommendation, I am quite convinced in my own mind that the enlarged area, whether there be a first-tier or second-tier authority, is not likely to be upset by anything the Royal Commission may say.
Having put on record the fact that the Commission is entirely free to make whatever recommendations it likes, and that we certainly have no knowledge at this stage of how it intends to report, I come to the question, why have we gone on with this Order?
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) men-


tioned a dispute about payment of money in the case of the review in Worcestershire, a county district review which was a very small matter and which was not proceeded with. There have been two statements about the future orders. My right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House said in February, 1966, that where decisions had already been announced on proposals the necessary Orders would be brought before Parliament as soon as possible. However, proposals on which decisions had yet to be taken—and this included Derbyshire—had still to be considered on their merits in the light of the decision to appoint the Royal Commission. Then my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government said that where there were cases for general organisation they would go ahead if the need for it was urgent.
We believe that it is in the interests of getting on with the vast slum clearance problem in Derby that it should be able to build on land outside the borough, for inside the borough there is not nearly sufficient land; there is some, but not nearly enough. Land in the county is urgently required if people are to be decently re-housed by 1981 who are now living in obsolescent houses in the City of Derby. Some 3,000 of the houses were built before 1852.
The question which many hon. Members have addressed to me is, if the report of the Royal Commission is expected this year, why go ahead? I had to deal with the question in the Sheffield case. I will say it again. As we see it, we believe we shall receive the report this autumn. I think the late autumn is the best forecast I can make. It will

take at least a year for the normal consultations with the local authority associations, the G.L.C., and other bodies which may be concerned. Subsequently it will take at least one to two years to prepare the legislation. We think it will be at least five to six years before the Royal Commission's recommendations are put upon the Statute Book. Because of the grave housing situation in Derby, and for many other good administrative reasons, we do not believe we ought to delay this Order in this case, and I hope the House will approve it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has not had a full opportunity to answer the debate. As we know, he has had many points to answer, and there are many other hon. Members on both sides of the House who yet want to speak. Could we have an extension of the debate, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has put this question to me before. He must leave it to the discretion of the Chair. Mr. Skeffington.

Mr. Skeffington: I was just coming to my peroration. In view of the case which I have advanced, because it will be some five years at the earliest before we can implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and because of the need to get on with the great housing work in Derby, I hope that the Order will be approved.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (procedure)):—

The House divided: Ayes, 41, Noes 176.

Division No. 53.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bessell, Peter
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Sharples, Richard


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Burden, F. A.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Concannon, J. D.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Swain, Thomas


Currie, G. B. H.
Kelley, Richard
Teeling, Sir William


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ly)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Eyre, Reginald
Neal, Harold
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Farr, John
Newens, Stan
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Pardoe, John
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Park, Trevor



Gardner, Tony
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Raymond
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Eric Lubbock and


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. Eric Ogden.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Armstrong, Ernest
Beaney, Alan


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bence, Cyril


Archer, Peter
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood




Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oakes, Gordon


Binns, John
Haseldine, Norman
O'Malley, Brian


Bishop, E. S.
Hattersley, Roy
Orme, Stanley


Booth, Albert
Henig, Stanley
Oswald, Thomas


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Horner, John
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Howie, W.
Pentland, Norman


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hoy, James
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Huckfield, Leslie
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Price, William (Rugby)


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Probert, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes. Geoffrey


Coe, Denis
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Roebuck, Roy


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Rose, Paul


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Leadbitter, Ted
Ryan, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Shaw, Arnold (iiford, S.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Delargy, Hugh
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dell, Edmund
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Skeffington, Arthur


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McBride, Neil
Slater, Joseph


Dickens, James
McCann, John
Small, William


Dobson, Ray
MacColl, James
Swingler, Stephen


Doig, Peter
MacDermot, Niall
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dunnett, Jack
Macdonald, A. H.
Thornton, Ernest


Dun woody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McGuire, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Urwin, T. W.


Eadie, Alex
Mackintosh, John p.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ennals, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ensor, David
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Faulds, Andrew
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Whitaker, Ben


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Foley, Maurice
Manuel, Archie
Wilkins, W. A.


Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Forrester, John
Marquand, David
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fowler, Gerry
Millan,. Bruce
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Freeson, Reginald
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Garrett, W. E.
Molloy, William
Woof, Robert


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Yates, Victor


Gregory, Arnold
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Albert
Mr. Joseph Haroer and


Hannan, William
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Mr. Alan Fitch.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRY AND SCIENCE (DIVERSIFICATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.39 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising the subject of the desirability for increased Government initiatives towards diversification of industry and science. This debate is about problems which arise in the process of turning swords into ploughshares. We should try to discuss it in such a way that the thousands of workers who now fear redundancy and uncertainty following the order to slow

up making swords may feel that they might have an exciting rôle to play in the challenging times ahead.
In recent years the House has spent many hours debating, amending and approving such unexciting legislation as that concerning the N.R.D.C. and the I.R.C., and now the Industrial Expansion Bill. This legislation is vital to give Ministers some help in painting an industrial and commercial panorama on the backcloth of the national scene. But what concerns people, especially those now gloomy about the future, is the speed and the way in which we paint in the details, and that is what we should be discussing now.
Everyone talks about the technological and scientific revolution as though it is something coming in a few years' time. But many of our current problems are due to the fact that it is already here and its changes are affecting every aspect of our life—some would say morally and spiritually as well. We are going through a tunnel of change, as it were, and cannot yet see the exit. This not only worries the British but other nations as well. As one of the delegates to the North Atlantic Assembly of 15 nations, and as Vice-Chairman of the Economic Commission, I know that many European M.P.s are warried about this as well.
This debate is not really unconnected with the one I had the privilege of initiating on 29th January last, dealing with the effects of American investment in British industry, because both subjects concern the economic changes involved and how we should deal with them. Due to the inherent defects in our own economy—our limited national resources and the restricted markets for our products—our technological future lies in Europe. This realisation is shown by the links we have forged, for example, with France in the production of the Concorde, the airbus, the helicopter deal and tie Jaguar and other joint projects. Our greatest contribution. I believe, to the vision of a European Technological Community, as envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is our own national inventive genius and the skill and initiative of our managements and workers.
These great assets will only find true expression and development if the Government provide the opportunities. But thousands of skilled workers are being sacked by Hawker-Siddeley at Coventry and Chelmsford, and G.E.C. factories at Woolwich, Harlow, Black-heath and Sydenham are affected by the merger with A.E.I, while the Ford workers at Dagenham and Dunton are worried. Mine workers in the so-called prosperous East Midlands are also worried.
We need not only a scientific revolution but a managerial revolution as well. Many workers are being made redundant without consultation, and very often little effort is made by firms to provide alternative work and there is often little co

ordination with other manufacturers. Many workers are thrown on the scrap heap at short notice. It is no wonder that, in these circumstances, many people are becoming disillusioned by what ought to be exciting changes.
I want to refer briefly to my constituency as being typical of the kind of problems we have to deal with. Diversification of industry is basically a matter of switching resources of money, men, material and manufacture from one area and one task to another as quickly and as smoothly as possible. My constituency covers 300 square miles of the East Midlands, and most of Nottinghamshire, and will be affected by the changes in fuel policy. Notts County Council and Southwell Rural District Council are concerned that this "grey" area does not get the help given to development areas and the respective clerks, Mr. R. A. Davis and Mr. S. Lynds, are urging local M.P.s to act.
I will deal with some of the problems. Within the parishes of Bilsthorpe, Boughton and Ollerton, for instance, we have isolated settlements entirely dependent on the coal industry. Nearly 70 per cent. of the male population depend on the mining industry, there being few other jobs. Now hundreds of textile workers, mostly women, are being threatened with redundancy in nearby Mansfield and districts like Ollerton. This is typical of the East Midlands. In the grey areas the Board of Trade and other Government Departments should consult the local planning authorities and the regional and economic development councils about industrial development certificate applications. As the local newspapers demand, now is the time to think of the future by actively campaigning for new industries to come to these areas.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I am sorry to intrude on the short time available to my hon. Friend, but while he has villages in his constituency where there is a 70 per cent. mining interest, I have a town of 70,000 people whose only industry, is mining. I have been to my constituency today and I have been amazed to find what a disastrous result will follow from the N.C.B.'s fuel pricing policy. The N.C.B. is now considering putting on the jeopardy list even pits which are economic.

Mr. Bishop: That is relevant to considerations of the area with which my hon. Friend and I are both concerned. Now is the time when something should be done to help these areas for the future.
While we appreciate the priorities of the development areas, since our election a few years ago my colleagues and I have been concerned to ensure that something is done to diversify and bring new industries to areas like mine where skilled miners, their wives and their adult children could be usefully employed in new work if given the opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) in particular with me have been pressing in that direction.
I want now to return to the national position. In the last 15 years, at least half of our resources in scientists have been busy on defence projects and last year research and development projects cost £260 million. These skills must be switched to civil projects following the cuts in defence research. Not only that, the technical spin-off from defence must be exploited in civil work wherever possible. Even the much criticised Polaris work has created an undreamed of bonus of new techniques—new steels, reinforced plastics, fuel cells, new designs and much else which should be used in other ways.
This is something which a Select Committee might consider. It is not an easy task to switch skilled engineers and designers and workers to such sophisticated work, but it must be done. Where possible, design teams must be kept together and new jobs found for them, because once these teams of skilled people are dispersed, it may take a year or more for them to regain the team efficiency and the understanding which are necessary to their jobs. Status and rewards are also important, as is the feeling of doing something exciting with the necessary facilities. Although that aspect is vital, this is not the opportunity for me to develop the subject.
All this is the background and one asks where the Government can provide the initiatives. First, I warn the Minister —if he needs warning—that it would be disastrous for the Government to provide a scientific and industrial feather bed. What is needed is a spring board

environment where, given the chance, initiative can ensure that the sky is the limit. The points I want to make fall under three headings.
First, there is the improvement of existing techniques. Wherever possible, industry must be encouraged to get on with the job itself of improving existing techniques in a technical environment, with, for instance, micro-electronics as compared with transistors. When firms are in danger of falling behind in international competition, they should expect some help from the Government through the N.R.D.C., the I.R.C. and Government Departments generally.
Secondly, it is very important that non-technical industries should be helped, because the advantages of technology instilled into a non-technical environment can help enormously by improving methods and increasing cost effectiveness and overcoming obstacles, such as making it possible for the construction industry to use difficult land. Automation in warehousing and computerised production are two more examples of the ways in which non-technical firms can get a scientific injection, or even a scientific blood transfusion.
The problem in such firms is that they may not be aware of the ways in which they can be helped, or, more serious, not aware that they can be helped. The Ministry of Technology and the advanced technology firms should get together to assess the position and report and follow up with small study contracts to systems type, multi-skilled firms who could assess what technical help could be provided for non-technical firms. I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know what is being done in this direction. Here are a few examples of such action.
The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, of which I am a member, heard a lecture a short while ago on ocean engineering and the need for a study of fish farming. It asked whether we knew the best methods of fishing, the right kind of vessels to use, the best ways of trawling, the technical and scientific aspects, temperature, density of fish, breeding, and so on. I would like to know whether enviromental studies are taking place. In view of recent events and tragedies, many of us feel that much remains to be done now on the safety aspects.
Another aspect which springs to mind on the section dealing with the help that we can give to non-technical industry would include traffic controls, building and running hospitals, sewage and rubbish disposal, automation of warehousing, air pollution, electric vehicles, pedestrian aids, noise abatement and so on. These are matters which need a good deal of study.
Another important point is the creation of new industries and products. Here there is the greatest scope for technical advance. The opportunities are available to industry and commerce. The more unique they are, the less chance they have of being taken seriously, and many accepted needs of today are being satisfied with what were once thought to be cranky inventions. It may well be that the ability to spot a potential winner among these cranky inventions is another "uncranky" way of backing Britain.
Jules Verne is not quite so odd nowadays, so one is inclined to ask what about the progress being made in underwater engineering. There is the "Kraken" project, the underwater house being developed by B.A.C., Imperial College, London, and shipbuilding and ventilating firms and scientists, to provide an acceptable artificial environment on the sea-bed, where oceanological and marine study can be carried on for long periods, without any physical damage. There are also other projects, such as the optical computer projects, holography, hydrofoils and space communication studies, all of which could make greater progress if they received more help and facilities in various ways.
I recognise that the N.R.D.C. does give a stimulus to various projects in many ways, but it could go further, being satisfied that the need and the potentiality exist. The defence industries, and especially the firms formerly employed on guided missiles with system capabilities, could be given study contracts, which might be shadowed to ensure that progress was kept within certain limits, with decisions as to whether to back projects being taken jointly with Mintech and others concerned.
Money must be made available early on for these projects on a proper and reliable assessment of the projects. I

wonder what greater progress could be made with hydrofoils, hover-trains, underwater schemes, fluidics, new dock installations, traffic control and much else, if the cash and research facilities had been made available. While we appreciate the immense amount of work being done by "Mintech and the legislation made available by the Government to provide assistance, it is the application which is vital to the successes which we hope to have.
I have mentioned but a few ways in which greater progress might be made in harnessing the energy and the scientific potential to non-technical industries, of ways of helping advanced technology, and, in the process, ways of really backing Britain. Let us not forget the less sophisticated areas, the pot and pan, and the common cold areas. For instance, there is the problem of sickness, industrial and otherwise. If research in medicine, even in common cold and bronchitis prevention, proceeded and succeeded, we might balance our economy by making very substantial cuts in the 300 million working days now lost annually. That, I submit, is something which should not be sneezed at.
We have a world where half the people go to bed hungry nightly, and where the birth rate ensures that there are roughly 200,000 more people needing bed and breakfast every day. Progress is urgent. In short, what we are trying to do is to put a man on the moon and at the same time to ensure that those on earth have their place in the sun.
Whether we can afford to do both at the same time remains to be seen. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being prepared to answer this debate at this hour. His comments will be studied closely by those affected by these changes.

11.55 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler): I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) for having raised this topic at so appropriate a time and pleased that it falls to me to reply to him.
I can assure him straight away that the Ministry of Technology is as much concerned with "ploughshare" as it is with "sword" technology and is hence well suited to


deal with the problems of a period when defence requirements are running down and in which it is vital nevertheless to expand our industrial production. above all for export.
My hon. Friend was right to stress less sophisticated "low technology" areas, as he did at the end of his speech, and the Ministry supports his view that this area should not be overlooked.
For example, the Ministry's Warren Spring laboratory at Stevenage has done much valuable work in connection with the recovery of valuable industrial metals from alloy scrap, and has developed a technique for the recovery of metal powders from metal hydroxide slurries. The Laboratory has also evolved separators employing air fluidisation techniques which are likewise being used in the scrap recovery field.
Or to take a somewhat more sophisticated technology, the Ministry is greatly concerned with tribology, which is the science and technology of friction, wear, lubrication, and bearing design. My hon. Friend should be interested to know that the Committee on Tribology is examining ways in which no less than an estimated £500 million a year could be saved—even the common cold does not cause us so great an economic loss—and these problems are being treated as a matter requiring urgent attention.
A National Centre of Tribology is being established at the Reactor Engineering Laboratory of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at Risley, and what are known as Industrial Units, specialising in tribology, and providing advice and assistance to industry on tribology problems, are being established at Leeds University and at the University College of Swansea.
My hon. Friend said that other forms of work might benefit from the effects of "spin-off" and, of course, there is a "spin-off" from defence projects; but this is not normally such that, as he seemed to be half suggesting, a particular factory can switch overnight from defence projects to similar civil projects. It is rather a case of, first, developments covering a wide range of industrial applications, as, for example, microelectronics and guided weapon development. Or, secondly, particular and limited applications of developments made with other

uses in mind, such as the water-cooled suits developed by the Royal Aircraft Establishment for use by R.A.F. pilots, which have also been tried out by surgeons in a hospital operating theatre. They will also be used by the United States moon-landing astronauts.
These suits have enabled men to tolerate the hot—up to 200 degrees Centigrade—atmosphere near a glass furnace and in a steel ladle, for a much longer time than would otherwise be possible.
Other work at the Royal Armament Establishment at Fort Halstead, Kent, has resulted in the development of arc plasma equipment for industrial applications, ranging from automatic plasma spray-forming units to mobile workshop units of a capacity up to three KV. These small, low-cost, self-contained units are operable from standard 15 amp, 230 volt, plugs, and may be used for cutting, spraying, and welding operations.
My hon. Friend also referred to the need to bring computers into industrial production processes. I can tell him that the Aldermaston project for the application of computers to engineering has been established to teach the use of computers, and to act as consultants to industry in the fields of computer-aided design, production control, numerical control of machine tools, and management generally in the engineering field. We now provide many such services designed to improve the performance of industry as a whole.
There is the Numerical Control Advisory and Demonstration Service which will be operated on behalf of the Ministry by the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the Production Engineering Research Association. This service will provide impartial advice on the adoption and use of numerically-controlled machine tools and equipment. The Ministry is providing capital support to Airmec-A.E.I. Ltd. for a complementary numerical control advisory demonstration centre. The Ministry also provides a Production Engineering Advisory Service organised regionally and operated on behalf of the Ministry by the Production Engineering Research Association and, to encourage the wider application of simple but effective automation techniques, we are setting up low cost automation centres at a number of universities


and technical colleges. In each of the regions there is a Ministry regional office which draws on the resources of the Ministry, the universities and of research associations to help local industry directly.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, the central problem is one of communication, ensuring that firms, particularly small ones, are aware of the help available to them, and these services are designed to do exactly that.
It is sometimes possible to provide help for the community as a whole. My hon. Friend referred to air pollution. The Ministry's Warren Spring Laboratory is doing considerable work in this. Perhaps the most important part of the work is the National Survey of Smoke and Sulphur Dioxide organised by the Laboratory on a sound statistical basis and carried out in co-operation with local authorities and others to provide data on the distribution of pollution throughout the country and its dependence on emissions of pollutants, weather conditions and other factors. The Atomic Energy Authority is also doing work in this sphere of activity.
Then there is the assistance provided by the Government and public agencies to particular industries. My hon. Friend referred to the need to improve existing techniques. The recent announcement of I.R.C. support for Reed Paper for their de-inking process is an example of the sort of support that can be available; in this case, there is an important import-saving consideration.
The Ministry's machine tool preproduction order scheme is an example of another kind of support. Contracts worth over £2 million have already been placed, and further contracts of the same order are being negotiated.
In this context, I will turn briefly to the fishing industry, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Studies of the marine environment of the type that he appears to have in mind are constantly in progress in the Fisheries Research Laboratories of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, under the general co-ordination of the Natural Environment Research Council.
My own Ministry also has some interests in this area. The Ministry's Research

Station at Torry is concerned with problems arising from the transport and storage of fish at sea and on land. It seeks to determine the properties that contribute to the quality of fresh, frozen and cured fish, and to improve methods of preservation; and to improve the equipment and methods used in handling, storing, processing and distribution of fish, and so obtain better products and reduced costs. British fisheries make an important contribution to the national diet, but our total fish supply is heavily dependent on imports, whereas exports are negligible by comparison.
It is not suggested that work at Torry could eliminate the need to import fish, but application of knowledge already available at Torry, to say nothing of further work specifically directed to such ends, could do much to reduce the incentive to import. For instance, seasonal shortages of particular species could be minimised by really adequate cold storage operations, that is, operations in which there was no appreciable loss in quality. Alternatively, attractive presentation of more abundant species might well lessen the demand for expensive, scarce varieties.
The Ministry's National Physical Laboratory also plays a role in this industry by its work on ship design.
To summarise, a considerable amount of research in connection with the fishing industry is being carried out by Government research establishments. I hope that industry will not fail to take up the results of this research. Fishing is an old industry, but should not for that reason turn its back on technological change.
The Government, too, are providing help for specific projects, or for developing new products, too numerous to detail. My hon. Friend mentioned the electric car. The Ministry has had extensive consultation with industry about lightweight rechargeable batteries suitable for traction, and negotiations for a development contract with a leading firm are at an advanced stage.
On the subject of vehicles, the Ministry's National Engineering Laboratory has taken a lead in the application of hydrostatic transmission to motor vehicles, and progress is being made in its exploitation.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is the exploitation of innovation that is crucial. Too often, as has been said many times in the past, we are too slow in taking up and exploiting innovation. It is true that it is difficult to form a reliable assessment of the potentialities of an idea in the early stages of research and development. However, we in the Ministry of Technology have begun to tackle this problem. For example, the Programmes Analysis Unit, jointly established between "Mintech" and the A.E.A., is now engaged in detailed studies, using the most advanced computer techniques, to evaluate the likely return on the many research and development projects for which we are responsible.
This need to ensure the application of modern technology throughout British industry at as fast a rate as possible is one of the reasons for the introduction of the Industrial Expansion Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, the Ministry should be in a position to provide "launching aid" for industries other than the aircraft industry.
My hon. Friend is right in saying that in many fields this country's technological future must lie in co-operation across national frontiers, especially with Europe. This need for co-operation arises partly because of the high cost of developing a particular technology or product, but also because of the need to ensure a market of the right size, the need to tie common production to common purchasing. This need is shown most clearly in the case of the aircraft industry. We are already engaged in collaborative projects and perhaps we will go on to build a European family of aircraft.
The possibilities of a European Technological Community and a European Technological Institute as a major instrument both for the examination of the scope for industrial integration and re-organisation and for subsequent translation of its recommendations into effective action indicate the framework within which greater collaboration could be achieved.
But, of course, this may mean the growth of European rather than national firms which is, given the political implication—the need for political machinery to control a new form of industrial power—one of the reasons for securing

early entry to the E.E.C. With international firms the fear may arise that work formerly done in one country might go to another country.
This kind of apprehension has arisen among Ford's British employees, for example in relation to the Ford Engineering and Design Establishment at Dunton. However, the recently announced redundancies have nothing to do with the setting up of Ford of Europe. Ford have assured us that it is simply not true to suggest that the major part of the design and development work previously carried out here has been, or will in the future be, transferred to Germany.
Ford's have, of course, been expanding their production in Merseyside, a development area. And again, one of the consequences of the G.E.C.-A.E.I. merger and subsequent rationalisation is that some work will be moving into their development area plants.
Though we as a Government approve of this, it is equally important not to lose sight of the social and human problems of those made redundant, nor of the economic need to utilise their skills to the full, although new applications of skill may have to be learnt because of the pace of technological change.
The Ministry of Labour placing service is, of course, available to help redundant workers. Here the policy of the Ministry is to encourage employers to give advance notice of redundancies in sufficient time for the redeployment machinery to act effectively. For this purpose about four weeks is all that is normally necessary, and I hope that employers will give this sort of notice.
It is also important that when rationalisation is to take place the rundown will be planned so as to give employees a reasonable chance to find other jobs, and that there should be consultation with those affected, their unions and others concerned.
Finally, there is the question of the mining areas. The Government is fully aware of the problem, hence the provisions of the Coal Industry Act and the creation of "special areas" within development areas.
But this leaves the problem of those districts heavily dependent on this one


industry, but not in a development area. I.D.C. applications are confidential, but the Board of Trade do consider representations from local bodies who wish to discuss industrial development policy. And, of course, the Hunt Committee is considering this very problem of the "grey areas ". I hope that local authorities in the areas represented by my

hon. Friends have already made submissions to that Committee.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m.

Orders of the Day — Second Reading Committee

Wednesday, 14th February, 1968

[SIR BARNETT JANNER in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:


Sir Barnett Janner (Chairman)


Atkins, Mr. Humphrey (Merton and Morden)
Mallalieu, Mr. J. P. W. (Minister of State, Board of Trade)


Carter-Jones, Mr. Lewis (Eccles)
Maxwell, Mr. Robert (Buckingham)


Fitch, Mr. Alan (Wigan)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Mr. R. J. (Tiverton)


Hastings, Mr. Stephen (Mid-Bedfordshire)
Murray, Mr. Albert(Gravesend)



Onslow, Mr. Cranley (Woking)


Hobden, Mr. Dennis (Brighton, Kemp-town)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)



Rankin, Mr. John (Glasgow, Govan)


Howarth, Mr. Robert (Bolton, East)
Ridsdale, Mr. Julian (Harwich)


Jackson, Mr. Colin (Brighouse and Spenborough)
Ryan, Mr. John (Uxbridge)


Jones, Mr.Dan (Burnley)
Scott, Mr. Nicholas (Paddington, South)


 Lane, Mr. David (Cambridge)
Spriggs, Mr. Leslie (St. Helens)



Mr. G. S. Ecclestone, Committee Clerk

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION BILL [Lords]

10.30 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Civil Aviation Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Sir Barnett. Pursuant to Mr. Speaker's Ruling of yesterday—reported in c. 1156 of HANSARD— concerning Measures originating in the House of Lords which necessarily involve a charge upon public funds, may I draw your attention to Clause 7 of this Bill, which gives power to make grants or loans to airports? I respectfully submit that this falls within the provisions of the Ruling by Mr. Speaker, and that this Bill, therefore, ought not to be entertained by the House of Commons or any of its Committees.

The Chairman: I think that the answer to that will be found in Clause 22(7), where there is a provision dealing with the matter.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order. I had noticed that subsection, but it seemed to me that it was incompatible with Clause 7, which specifically gives power to the Board of Trade to make grants or loans. Since these can only come from public funds, nothwith-standing the provision in Clause 22(7), the provision is ultra vires the other place.

The Chairman: I am afraid that I cannot agree. The subsection does cover the position. It was put, in specifically to cover the point raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Further to that point of order, Sir Barnett. This is an important point, and perhaps we need to have our minds cleared on it. In addition to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum certain other Clauses are referred to under which payments of moneys provided by Parliament may arise. Although I am not familiar with the terms of the Bill which gave rise to Mr. Speaker's Ruling yesterday, can you assure the Committee that there was in that Bill no similar subsection which might have qualified it for consideration?

The Chairman: Yes. I understand that there was not a similar provision in the Bill to which the hon. Member refers. It was put in this Bill specifically to meet the point.

Mr. Mallalieu: Sir Barnett, the Bill is one of the miscellaneous Measures which Governments bring forward from time to time, which Oppositions refer to as "rag bags" and which Governments always say are bringing the law and practice up-to-date. It contains a number of provisions all of which are important, though they are not necessarily related to one another.
In sum, the Measure will be of real and practical help not only to the Board of Trade in discharging its responsibilities for civil aviation, but also to Northern Ireland, to local authorities, to the British Airports Authority, to private owners who maintain and operate airports in the United Kingdom, to the air corporations and to other owners and operators of aircraft, as well as those who manufacture aircraft. We believe that each Clause will be a necessary contribution to the continued welfare of British air transport services or necessary for the implementing and development of the Government's plans for a coordinated airport system.
In a number of its Clauses the Bill reflects the change of pattern in aerodrome ownership since 1949, when the Civil Aviation Act came on to the Statute Book. Then, most of the main aerodromes were to be nationally owned and managed. Experience gained here and abroad argued for a move to decentralise ownership and management, and

this process is now far advanced, leaving the range of provision in the 1949 Act inadequate to cover present requirements.
Following a recommendation in the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates published in June, 1961, the Government of the day announced in a White Paper, Cmd. 1457, that an airports authority should be set up to own and manage the main international airports then owned by the State; that is to say, the London group and Prestwick. The Airports Authority Act, 1965, implemented that decision. Under the Act, the ownership and management of Heathrow, Gatwick, Prestwick and Stansted passed from the Ministry of Aviation to the British Airports Authority on 1st April 1966. This marked quite a step forward in the policy of decentralising the management of airports and allowed a more flexible policy towards airport users and a quicker reaction to their rapidly changing needs than was possible under the direct control of the central Government machine.
The policy of transfer to local authorities, singly or in consortia, of the airports in the regions is justifying itself in the event. A recognition of the need to include in the range of municipally provided public services the facilities of this important transport development has stimulated authorities throughout the country to study the requirements of the travelling public and the airline operators and to provide for them as far as they judge reasonable and possible.
There are one or two difficult spots where aerodromes still are inadequate for present-day traffic, and steps are being taken to rectify this position. In general, the picture is of an adequate coverage by well-constructed aerodromes serving all the main centres of population. If anything, there is at present an over-provision, but in view of the very rapid rate at which air traffic is growing, that is not a bad thing, and it is quite clear that in the future the acquisition of new airport land will become more and more difficult, especially as the wartime airfields are given over to other uses.
In general, what inadequacies there are in the air transport pattern are attributable to the problem of establishing viable services from the many aerodromes and, as the traffic increases as


time goes on, I hope that this problem, too, will diminish. Broadly speaking, the aerodromes are there for those who wish to use them. The position is being watched steadily and continuously by the regional economic planning councils, and Board of Trade officials are available at any time to give advice on aerodrome matters.
So much by way of introduction. I ought now perhaps to go through the main Clauses of the Bill. Clause I deals with the control of road traffic at Board of Trade and local authority aerodromes. The Road Traffic Acts already apply to those aerodrome roads to which the public have access. This Clause enables the ordinary laws applying to road traffic in general to be extended to aerodrome roads to which the public do not have access but on which there is a substantial traffic problem. I have immediately in mind a private road leading to B.O.A.C. headquarters and which carries substantial traffic. It also enables those laws to be modified where necessary to confer on an airport authority the functions of a highway or local authority in relation to roads on its aerodrome. On aerodromes belonging to the British Airports Authority, these powers are already provided under the Airports Authority Act.
Clauses 2 to 5 give powers to the Board of Trade, to local authorities and to the proprietors of certain private aerodromes to make by-laws and provide penalties. Originally, we had not thought it necessary to bring in privately-owned aerodromes apart from those having a substantial amount of commercial traffic, but, on suggestions from another place, this limitation has now been dropped.
Clause 6 gives local authorities power to provide facilities for civil aviation at aerodromes not established or maintained by them. On occasions, such as at St. Mawgan, there is a civilian enclave on an R.A.F. station. The Clause makes certain that local authorities will have power to set up such enclaves and maintain them. Another example which springs to mind is Leuchars.
Clause 7 enables grants or loans to be made from public funds towards providing, maintaining and extending aerodromes. While noting the point of order raised earlier, this is very largely a matter of form. Already there are implicit

powers under Section I of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, to make grants and loans, but it is not absolutely clear that these powers cover continuing payments extending over a period. The Clause simply makes clear what the authority is.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, could he tell the Committee how the Board of Trade could possibly make grants under the Clause without those grants coming from public funds? That is what is so unclear to me.

The Chairman: Perhaps I did not make the position clear. The Lords introduced the subsection I referred to. Later on, the point raised now will be rectified by the subsection being deleted in Committee, the Money Resolution being available then. This is to cover the question of Commons privilege. I hope that that explains the position.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful, Sir Barnett. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us, then, whether it is his intention at the subsequent stage to withdraw the Clause? He did not indicate that he intended to abolish the Clause later on. Is that his intention?

Mr. Mallalieu: Not to abolish Clause 7, but to remove the last subsection in the Bill, which is inserted specifically to cover the point raised by the House of Lords.
Clause 8 extends the powers of the Northern Ireland Government, so as to enable them to make laws in respect of aerodromes in Northern Ireland. Oddly enough, when the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, was passed, the Northern Ireland Parliament was precluded from dealing in aerial navigation. In those days, civil aviation was a comparatively small affair, and the tremendous growth of it was not foreseen. Clearly, it is no longer appropriate that local authorities or statutory bodies in Northern Ireland who wish to establish aerodromes to serve local needs should have to seek approval from Whitehall. Nor is it appropriate that ownership and control over the management and future development of the airport serving Belfast, with its very important and rapidly growing traffic, should continue to be managed from Whitehall. The primary purpose of Clause 8 is to pave the way for the


Northern Ireland Government to assume responsibility for Aldergrove under powers which they will seek from their own Parliament as soon as this Bill becomes law. Safety matters will still be controlled by the Board of Trade by means of aerodrome licensing because of the international obligations of the United Kingdom in this respect.
Clause 9 gives airport authorities power to detain and, if necessary, sell, after 28 days, aircraft for non-payment of airport charges. I ought here to direct the Committee's attention, if it has not been noticed already, to a misprint in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which refers to a period of 21 days when the Bill itself refers to 28 days. Harbour authorities already have powers to detain and sell ships for nonpayment of habour dues under Section 44 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847.
Clause 10 extends the power of the Board of Trade under Section 4 of the Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Act, 1962, to make regulations requiring the payment of charges for air navigation services so as to include services rendered by international organisations, or foreign Governments, in pursuance of agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party. It also closes a number of small gaps in the existing law to ensure that all operators may be charged for those services wherever they are rendered.
Clauses 11, 12 and 13 perhaps hang together. Clause 12 enables provision to be made by Order in Council for giving effect to the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft. The purpose of this Convention, which was drawn up in Geneva as long ago as 1948, is to ensure that mortgages and other rights in aircraft recorded in the State of Registry of the aircraft are recognised in other States which are party to the Convention and thereby to improve the security which airlines and other purchasers can offer to those financing the purchase of aircraft. The Convention contains some features unfamiliar to the law of this country. For example, the protection given by the Convention will override the traditional repairers' lien, but I do not think that these are insuperable obstacles.
After an obviously very slow start the Convention has attracted 27 adherents, including the United States and most of Western Europe, and its potential value to the United Kingdom has been proportionately increased. All in all, therefore, we think that the time has now come when we should take powers to ratify the Convention, a decision which has been welcomed particularly by the Society of British Aerospace Companies.
To obtain the full benefits of the Convention, it is necessary to establish in the United Kingdom an acceptable system for the creation and recording of charges on aircraft. This is something which, apart from the Convention, has become desirable in itself.
At present, as the Committee will know, moveables, other than ships, cannot be mortgaged in English law except by a bill of sale, which is a very cumbersome procedure. I understand that in Scotland there is no system at all for mortgaging a chattel. So Clause 11 gives power to provide by Order in Council for the mortgaging of aircraft registered in the United Kingdom on lines generally similar to the provisions made in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, for the mortgaging of ships. That is a provision which in fact goes back to 1854 and it is one part of the Merchant Shipping Act which is not out of date.
I draw the Committee's attention at this point to Clause 11(2,b and c) which leave it possible to include in the Order in Council whatever provisions seem best for establishing the relative priorities of various rights and charges, including the power to sell an aircraft under Clause 9, and for governing the relationship of the Order to other relevant enactments such as the Companies Act and the Bills of Sale Act. Precisely what provisions will go into the Order will depend upon consultations which we are hoping to have with the industry forthwith.
Finally in this part of the Bill we come to Clause 13 which provides in particular that Orders in Council made under Clauses 11 and 12 shall be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, except in the case of Orders applying only to overseas territories, for which separate provision is made.
Clause 14 recognises the situation, which is becoming increasingly common today, when, in order that the maximum use may be made of very expensive modern aircraft, an airline which temporarily has some spare capacity may lease one of its aircraft to another airline which is temporarily short. Such arrangements, which make good economic sense, may take a variety of forms and involve leases for short or long periods. The kind of arrangement with which Clause 14 is particularly concerned is one where an aircraft owned by an operator of one nationality is chartered without crew to an operator of another nationality but remains on the national register of the original operator. Normally, it is the responsibility of the State in which the aircraft is registered to regulate the operation of the aircraft so as to ensure safety, and it may not be registered in more than one country at a time. In the kind of case I have just mentioned, however, particularly where the chartered aircraft is operated outside its State of Registry, it may be that control can be more effectively exercised by the State of the operator, and the State of Registry may, therefore, wish temporarily to delegate its responsibility to that State. At present, under Section 59 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, the Air Navigation Order and the Regulations made under it cannot be extended to foreign-registered aircraft except when they are in United Kingdom airspace.
Clause 14 will enable the United Kingdom to exercise extra-territorial control over foreign-registered aircraft operated by a United Kingdom operator and thereby facilitate the commercially sensible interchange of aircraft between airlines without loss of proper safety supervision. We should not propose to exercise such control over a foreign-registered aircraft except with the consent of the State of Registry.
Clause 15 requires the registration as local land charges in England and Wales of rights enforceable under Section 23(7) of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, which deals with powers over land in connection with civil aviation. This Clause is necessary because we have recently been advised that Section 23(7) does not accord with the principles of land registration in England and Wales, in that it does not require certain rights created

by agreement, which, under Section 23(7), becomes binding upon the successors in title of the grantor, to be registered in a public register.
Clause 16 extends the time limit for summary prosecutions under the Air Navigation Order and Regulations arising out of aircraft accidents. The Committee will probably remember that the Cairns Committee on Aircraft Accident Investigation recommended that the time limit of six months for summary prosecutions for offences arising out of aircraft accidents should be extended for 12 months. This is what Clause 16 does.
It also provides that the term "accident" used in the Clause, and in Section 10 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, shall include any fortuitous or unexpected event by which the safety of an aircraft or any person is threatened. This would include, for example, an air-miss, which could be said to be the avoidance, rather than the occurrence, of an accident, and an unexpected malfunction of an aircraft's controls, even though no damage or, in normal language, no accident resulted. "Accident" is not defined in the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, and this Clause ensures that Regulations for the investigation of aircraft accidents made under Section 10 of that Act, as well as the provisions of this Clause, can apply to any such fortuitous or unexpected event.
Clause 17 ensures that the existing powers of control over adjacent land shall apply to areas where the testing of planes take place. At the present moment there is some doubt whether at aerodromes such as Hurn, or, in earlier days, Wisley, where testing has taken place, the powers over buildings on adjacent lands can apply. This Clause makes clear that they can.
Clause 18 makes a number of minor amendments affecting the British Airports Authority, B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. It simplifies the formalities respecting the common seal of these three bodies and defines the word "pension" for the purposes of paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 1 to the Airports Authority Act, 1965. Owing to an oversight, the Airports Authority Act, 1965, included no definition of "pension ". Without the definition, the word might be interpreted as meaning only periodical payments, so that no lump sum payments could be made.
Clause 19 repeals some inoperative provisions of Part IV of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, relating to damage caused by aircraft to persons and property on land or water. Section 128 of the Companies Act, 1967, repealed some of the Sections of Part IV of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, those relating to compulsory third-party insurance, which had never been brought into force. This Clause repeals the remaining provisions of Part IV, which are obsolete particularly because of the low limit of liability which they impose.
The remaining Clauses 20, 21 and 22 are the usual ones dealing with the exercise of the powers of the Board of Trade, financial aspects, citation, interpretation and extent.
I apologise for the length of this opening speech and for some of the complications arising out of references to various other Acts, but I hope that the explanation I have given of these Clauses will be of help to the Committee, and I hope that in due course they will be approved.

Mr. Dan Jones: May I raise a point of order? I had no desire to interrupt the Minister when he was making his statement. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says:
Clause 9 confers power on aerodrome authorities to detain aircraft to secure the payment of airport charges, and, if the charges are not paid within twenty-one days, to sell the aircraft and apply the proceeds in satisfaction of the charges and incidental expenses.
However, Clause 9(1,b) says,
… if the charges are not paid within twenty-eight days.…
Am I wrong in thinking that there appears to be a contradiction there? In any case, I think we should be enlightened.

The Chairman: I think the Minister might advise on that.

Mr. Mallalieu: My hon. Friend is quite right. Indeed, I dealt with this point in my speech, apologising for a misprint in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.

The Chairman: I do not think the hon. Member was in his seat when the Minister was explaining it.

Mr. Dan Jones: Yes, I was.

The Chairman: I apologise to the hon. Member.

10.57 a.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I think that the Committee generally welcomes this Bill. Even though we on this side may describe it as a rag bag, as the Minister suggested, it is not a bad rag bag, and generally we should be disposed to commend it to the House.
Perhaps I might begin by expressing my own and, I think, the Committee's thanks to another place for the work which has been done in improving the Bill before it reached us. That will, no doubt, considerably shorten our labours this morning, and, I dare say, also in Committee, and indicates the value of another place in the preparatory stages of this and other legislation.
I am led on from that to wonder whether we might not have spared ourselves some duplication by taking as read much of the Minister's introduction of the Bill this morning, for it was a repetition of the introduction which is available in the HANSARD report of the debate on Second Reading in the Lords. If it is thought necessary that such introductions should be re-presented to us, I wonder whether we might in time evolve some system whereby what involves straightforward repetition of what has been said elsewhere might be circulated in written form, rather than put on the Minister the onus of having to read it all out again here. I recognise there are some changes, because the Bill has been amended and improved in another place, but it seems a waste of time that so many of the Clauses have to be re-explained all over again.
Perhaps I may make one or two remarks about the attitude of the Government to aviation in general and the place of air transport in a modern communications system. The Minister suggested that by and large everything was pretty well all right, the aerodromes were there, the services were not always there, but he was keeping an eye on the whole situation. I do not find that a particularly dynamic or stimulating attitude for the development of air transport.
It is not new to find undynamic and unstimulating attitudes. In the National Plan we find that there is practically no mention of air transport in that weighty


document. On page 218, in Part II, there is a statement that this is a rapidly expanding industry, and that the operations of airports have been excluded from the considerations of the National Plan. This seems to be an extraordinary omission, because airports are major centres of economic activity. Heathrow generates employment, directly or indirectly, for 300,000 people, and it is distressing to see this kind of negative approach reflected in Government policy. It is again reflected in the Transport White Paper. There has been no sign from the Ministry of Transport that there is any recognition of the need to include air operations in whatever may be defined as an integrated transport policy.
The particular value of air transport in the context of regional development is something to which we ought to pay much greater attention. The South-West is an obvious example. There are cases with particular claim for attention in the North-East and the North-West, and in Scotland. The ability of people to move about quickly from place to place and to conduct business in diverse places, and to move goods quickly, is essential to effective economic activity. We must not regard air transport as a byway, because it is a maintream activity.
We have to be much more air-minded —not just in the context of the flying circuses of pre-war days, but of the present day—if we are to overcome some of the public objections encountered in airport operation. Although it is understandable that there is and will be objections to noise at airports, there is a case for saying that if people understand how important airports are, then some of the objections will be less unreasoning.
I want to stress the value of an effective airport system in the context of the movement of freight. It gives quick, secure facilities for the movement of goods, which enables people to take advantage of economic activity not sited close to the coast.
This obviously gives great opportunities for cost and time saving on imports and exports, as well as the advantages which would accrue from the encouragement of a more diversified airport system in the tourist industry. All this is still unrecognised by the Government, who seem to be living in the diesel age. I find it

regrettable that they have no airport policy and are unable to see the need to formulate such a policy.
Dealing with Clause 7, I have no doubt that a detailed reference to the confusion and bungling over Stansted would be out of order, but I may perhaps use this opportunity to ask for some indication of present Government thinking on this subject, and especially on the timing of the Order which, we are told, will be laid before Parliament. May we also know something of the financial outlay involved? Although I recognise that the British Airports Authority is specifically excluded from the terms of Clause 7, in so far as airports which it already owns are concerned, the Committee will be interested to know how the Government propose that the work at Stansted should be financed.
Perhaps it might also be timely if we could know how much longer the Government intend to allow the British Airports Authority to remain in breach of its obligations at Stansted under the Airports Authority Act. I remind the Minister that that Act requires, by Section 2(7) that,
In the management and administration of any aerodrome the Authority shall provide for users of the aerodrome, for the local authorities in whose areas the aerodrome or any part thereof is situated …adequate facilities for consultation with respect to matters affecting their interests, and shall, in doing so, give effect to any direction given to it by the Minister.
In the latest Report of the British Airports Authority, for the years 1965 to 1967, we find on page 57 the statement, under the heading "Consultative Committee ":
In line with its other airports the Authority plans to set up a consultative committee at Stansted as soon as scheduled service transport starts there.
I do not see anything in the Airports Authority Act which enables the Airports Authority to decide at what point of time it will open a consultative committee. The obligation laid upon it seems to be defined quite specifically. The Act says
… the Authority shall provide …
and I would think that the Authority should provide.

The Chairman: I hope the hon. Member will forgive me, but I think that he is getting a little beyond the scope of


this Bill. Perhaps he would confine himself more narrowly to it?

Mr. Onslow: I have no doubt that you are right, Sir Barnett, but I have made my point and I will return to the Bill.
I hope that in Committee we can spend a certain amount of time on Clause 9, because this seems in many respects to be the most important Clause in the Bill. It provides quite wide powers for airport operators, but does it give adequate safeguards for the operators of aircraft? It might be helpful if I gave the Minister some idea of the questions to which we would like the answers when we get into Committee.
I understand that the Government plan to take the powers which they seek by Section 44 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847. I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister, on how many occasions since 1847, perhaps in some more recent period, have harbour authorities exercised their powers to sell under that Act? I do not believe that they have been very frequently exercised, yet here we are in 1968, providing similar powers for air transport.
I would also like to ask whether the Government know of any overseas country in which the owners or managers of an aerodrome have power to sell aircraft for unpaid navigation or landing charges. The Minister will agree that it would be useful if we were to keep ourselves as closely as possible in line with international practice in what is an international field of operations. I understand. too, that powers of sale with 14 days' notice were possessed by the Minister of Aviation in respect of unpaid charges and are already possessed by the British Airports Authority, according to the 1968 United Kingdom Air Pilot.
This leads me to ask, how often has the Ministry of Aviation exercised the power of sale claimed by virtue of the standard conditions under which aircraft may land, depart, or otherwise be dealt with at Government aerodromes? How much debt was involved in each case and how much realised on the sale of aircraft? On how many occasions and with what results has the British Airports Authority exercised the powers of sale claimed under the standard conditions,

and how will the powers under Clause 9 replace the powers claimed in the standard conditions so far as the British Airports Authority is concerned?
Generally, I would also ask, why does the Airports Authority need the power of sale, in addition to the right of detention over aircraft and the right to enforce charges by legal action in the courts? The Minister will know that aircraft are expensive items, not lightly left lying around, and people who own and operate them want to use them so that they get a return on the capital invested. To apply, in the context of air transport, powers which may be appropriate in the context of small value and tonnage, seems to be rather extraordinary.
I realise that this is a load of questions to ask on this Clause, and I will not mind if I do not get all the answers this morning, but they are questions to which we want answers before we consider this Clause in Committee.
We also have had a comment on the misprint in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which reflects the fact that in another place the time limit was extended to 28 days and the Clause quite properly amended accordingly. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum appears to have escaped amendment. We may still want to know and be satisfied that this period is long enough. Here again, it would be of value if we were to get some account from the Government of the international precedent which applies.
As to Clause 11, I am bound to ask whether an Act 75 years old is the best available precedent for something which applies to today. This is a provision which will undoubtedly be useful and will enable aircraft operators to have access to certain wider sources of finance than at present. Although it may be argued that such a provision is overdue, are we sure that this is the precise way in which to ensure that the operations are in line with modern needs?
I have had some representations on the wording of the Clause as it stands, and I wonder why the Minister told us that he would have consultations with the industry forthwith. This Bill has been about for a little while, and I would have thought that the Minister would have


understood the need to consult the industry when it was first published, even if not in its preparatory stages. It is unfortunate that such consultation, which will be of considerable significance, should have been left to such a relatively late stage.
I agree that it is a very good thing that 20 years after the Geneva Convention was first drawn up, we should be in a position to accede to it. That is dealt with in Clause 12. At the same time, it was admitted in another place that the Convention was outdated in many respects, and this was the argument advanced by Lord Beswick as a reason for not printing the Convention as a Schedule to the Bill. When we get to the Clause, perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to tell us what outdated provisions we shall now empower ourselves to adhere to, and what consideration he has given to taking an international initiative to draw up a better and more up-to-date version of the Convention.
Clause 16 is particularly welcome. This is obviously an area in which the ability to hold inquiries into near accidents has been deficient and I heartily welcome the extended powers given.
Clause 17, as the Minister explained, is apparently related to places where aircraft are tested and the planning powers applying there. I am not sure that we are satisfied that planning powers in relation to aerodrome operation are adequate at present. One or two cases have emerged recently which suggest that there is a need for amendment of the law.
There is a case, I think at Southend, where a tree has now grown at the end of one runway to a point where it endangers approaching aircraft. The airport operator has no power to insist upon the tree being lopped and the owner refuses to allow it to be lopped. It may be a very fine tree, and I am not prejudging the case, but in this and other cases, which I have had drawn to my attention I feel that there is a need—and this is a good opportunity—to take a fresh look at the effectiveness of the existing law. It may be that we shall seek to table a new Clause on this point.
There is another new Clause which I would dearly like to be able to table, and perhaps I may yet find some way of getting it in order, to deal with the extraordinary situation, which must have its

root at the airport end, that because of the existing duty-free arrangements and the attitude of the Customs to them, enormous amounts of whisky arc constantly airborne over the Atlantic and the Channel, or wherever it may be—whisky and cigarettes flying to and fro in vast quantities—simply so that airline passengers may be able to buy them on board the aircraft. This is a tremendous waste of aircraft capacity and of cabin crew time.
I have always thought that it is particularly pointless that the cabin crew should be obliged to wheel an enormous trolley up the aircraft aisle and, under considerable difficulty, serve passengers with their duty-free requirements. I do not believe that relatively highly paid and highly skilled personnel should be engaged in this retail operation. I do not believe that it will do air transport any good if, when we get the airbus, we find that it is a flying off-licence.
I do not know whether the Minister of State and I can find a point of agreement on this. It seems that, here again, we are in the steam age, as things stand. If under this Bill, or under any other Bill, we can find a more rational way of catering for this need—for instance, by enabling passengers to buy vouchers and cash them on the ground at their destination, thereby avoiding a most wasteful activity—such a Bill will be additionally worth while.
I repeat my welcome for the Bill. It contains some good stuff. It contains some slightly more doubtful stuff which we shall want to examine more closely in Committee. But I agree that the Bill should be commended to the House. We look forward to seeing it again in Committee.

11.17 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I want to say a few words in support of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), although he covered most of the points which raise some doubts in our minds. My hon. Friend's description of the Bill as a rag bag is a description which will strike anybody who has a genuine interest in the future of civil aviation. Useful rag bag it may be, but what civil aviation needs is not a rag bag but a policy. This is what we are


still waiting for from the Government. The evidence points to the fact that the Government have so far dodged it, neglected it, or simply not woken up to the extent of the growth which there is in this industry as a whole, and particularly in civil aviation—growth which, in several important respects, is staggering. The Bill will not cope with the problem, although it will fill in a number of gaps.
There is also the point that several important Clauses are based on legislation dating as far back as 1847 and 1894. We have always been led to believe that the Government regard this as the jet age. Perhaps it would be worth the Government's while to examine those Acts again, with particular reference to a point which I shall make later.
I want to raise some questions on the Clauses. The British Airports Authority is specifically excluded from the operation of Clause 7, which empowers the Treasury to make grants or loans. I have no immediate objection to this, but it is important to point out that, if the Authority is to be excluded, it must never be required to operate airfields anywhere un-commercially and against its commercial judgment, for, if that were so, it would be certainly unfair to exclude it in this way.
I heartily agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said about Clause 9, which deals with charges and penalties. The penalties specified for airline operators are very heavy. It will certainly be the duty of hon. Members on this side to examine the Clause very carefully in Committee, with particular regard to one issue. It must not be forgotten that the charges for airport services in Britain are the highest in the world. On previous Bills it has been argued—I remember so arguing, and there was some evidence for it—that these heavy charges are an important deterrent to the growth of the industry and, in particular, to the growth of international traffic. We should remember this when we consider the swingeing rights of the Authority or of the Board of Trade to sell people's aeroplanes if they fail to pay up within a few days.
I particularly welcome Clause 11, except to express some slight doubt about

the relevance of so ancient an Act. Aircraft mortgaging is a highly complicated subject. I am unable to say whether the Clause as drafted is adequate, but I cite to the Minister an example of what can happen. It is an example of which I have, in a sense, personal experience. Would the Clause cover a case in which an aircraft manufacturer in the United States builds and sells aircraft to an airline operating from this country, but not a British airline, if the airline, having sought mortgages in this country for those aircraft, defaults on payments for maintenance or servicing? In my experience, international litigation in such cases, even in European countries where mortgages are in force, is highly complex, and can become extremely difficult to enforce— unfairly difficult to enforce— for aircraft manufacturers. This is an illustration of the need to examine this in great detail. It is surprising that the Minister has not already examined with the industry the whole matter of mortgages.
As to Clauses 12 and 14, it is very desirable that we should accede to the Convention. Will the two Clauses together provide adequate protection against a repetition of the recent disgraceful case in Algeria, where a British aircraft, albeit operating from somewhere else, was impounded and, as far as I know, has not yet been released? It took the Government I do not know how many months to get the pilots released. Britain should not put up with this. I hope and assume that these two Clauses will provide for us at least to be in a better position to enforce what is no more than ordinary law in a case of this kind. I should be glad to hear the Minister's opinion.
I believe that this is a useful Bill, but it does not lead me to suppose that the Government have as yet appreciated the extent of the growth of the industry—23 per cent. in freight alone. The Bill contains very few provisions dealing with planning for that. There is nothing to lead me to suppose that the Government have yet understood it. We still await a civil aviation policy from the Government.

11.24 a.m.

Mr David Lane: I join in the general welcome which has been accorded to the Bill. I have only a few qualifications. Like my hon. Friend


the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), I was disappointed, especially after the Minister's initial reference to the Government's plans for a coordinated system of airports, that he failed to take this opportunity to clear up some of the confusion surrounding Stansted which, as he knows, is causing concern to a large number of people all over East Anglia.
My special interest in the Bill is that on the edge of my constituency of Cambridge is Marshall's Airport, a privately-owned concern. Over the years this has grown into an important regional airfield. I am glad that the dramatic growth of air transport has been stressed this morning. This airport is vital to the city of Cambridge, both for communications and for employment. It is a rather special case in one respect, because the employment arises chiefly from Marshall's function not only as a manufacturer but as an aircraft dockyard, in which it has a substantial business of repairs, modifications and fitting out. The airport is important also for passenger, industrial and goods transport of different types, including the transport of horses.
Looking ahead, the population of the whole of East Anglia is expected to grow at a rate twice that of the national average. It is thus clear that the importance of Marshall's is likely to continue to increase. On the whole, the terms of the Bill seem to be reasonable from the point of view of an operator such as this.
I am puzzled by one omission from the Bill. There may be very good reasons for it which the Minister can confirm. There is no provision, as far as I can see, strengthening the powers of aerodrome authorities to ensure that runway approaches are kept clear of constructions above the permitted height. This point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. The Government may think that it is satisfactorily covered by Section 26 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, but, after nearly 19 years' experience of that Act I would welcome a further explanation from the Minister. It may be a point that we can pursue in Committee.
I want to make three brief points of detail which, again, we may be able to develop further in Committee. First, I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of spelling out the pro

visions of Clause 4, which deals with the making of bylaws at certain private aerodromes, rather more clearly so that they are seen to cover works airfields in addition to ordinary traffic airfields. I should be happier if any private aerodrome of long standing were given the power to make its own regulations without specific designation. We should at least be given an assurance that the Board of Trade's power will not be restrictively used in any way.
Secondly, I hope that we can have an indication from the Minister of the scale of financial assistance which he thinks may have to be provided under Clause 7.
Thirdly, it is a little odd that private aerodromes are apparently set right apart by Clause 9(8), in a Clause which provides for the
Detention and sale of aircraft for unpaid airport charges.
It would be preferable for these aerodromes, provided that they are licensed by the Board of Trade, to be covered by the main part of subsection (7) with aerodromes
owned or managed by any government department, the British Airports Authority or a local authority ".
I hope that an explanation will be given on this point, otherwise we can pursue it in Committee.
Subject to these comments, I support the general purposes of the Bill on the rather narrow front it covers, and I hope we shall support the Motion.

11.28 a.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I want to draw some specific points to the attention of the Minister of State in the hope that at a later stage he will table Amendments to deal with them, his drafting facilities being rather more extensive than mine.
First, concerning the bylaws to be authorised under Clauses 2, 3 and 4, it is important, when powers are given to authorities of this type to make bylaws, to ensure that any bylaws made receive real and effective publicity before they come into effect. A tiny advertisement in small print in local newspapers, beginning with "Whereas" and ending with a full stop several paragraphs later, may technically meet a requirement for publicity, but it does not tell local people, who have been used to driving across moorland which happens to have on it


a runway which is scarcely ever used, that henceforth they risk criminal penalties if they do what they have done for years. I do not think that it is necessary to elaborate that point, except to ask the Minister of State to write into the Bill as effectively as he can the requirements for publicity in fairness to all parties, for this is something often overlooked.
Clause 9 deals with the right to sell an aircraft to satisfy charges. I am disturbed that there is no obligation on the party conducting the sale to obtain the best price. Apparently, as long as he recovers enough to defray the charges which have been run up to date, he can practically give the aircraft away, according to my reading of the Clause.
Many hon. Members must have had heartrendering cases of constituents who have gone bankrupt and who have genuine grounds for believing that their assets were disposed of casually and at far below the market price they should have obtained. If an airline is in temporary difficulties—perhaps because of a strike of its administrative section—and has not paid its bill within 28 days, then, as I read the Clause, there is nothing to stop the aerodrome operator, as long as he falls within the category of those permitted to sell aircraft to defray charges, to sell, for example, a Concorde, costing £7 million, in order to defray £250 airport charges. Apparently, as long as that sum of £250 is recovered, everyone will be happy—except the airline owning the Concorde and those who have lent it the money to purchase the aircraft.
Of course, that is an extravagant example, but the principle is authentic. I therefore ask the Minister of State to insert in the Clause a requirement that the fair, the best price should be obtained in these circumstances.
I was a little alarmed when the Minister referred to Clause 14. If I understood him correctly, he said that the power over an aircraft registered in another State but operated in the United Kingdom would only be used with the consent of the registering State. Occasions arise when, in the interests of public safety, it is necessary for the powers to be used, and frequently the aircraft involved are registered in foreign countries which are not universally renowned for

their technical excellence or the conscientious manner in which they enforce their domestic safety regulations. We all know the flag of convenience system as applied to shipping and the harm which flows from that. I do not think that what the Minister said necessarily prevents the use of powers under this Clause without the consent of the State of registration, but, if my understanding about the restriction of the right of control being inherent in the Clause is correct, then it needs amending, and if what he said was merely an off-the-cuff observation he may want to withdraw or amend it at a later stage.
Clause 17 deals with control over land in the interests of testing civil aircraft. One is always a little anxious about the rights of the other parties affected by what I believe the lawyers call injurious affection. If someone buys a piece of land, and has planning permission to erect a house on it and, just before he starts to erect that house, an aerodrome, or a factory which has a works aerodrome for testing aircraft, decides that it does not want a house to be built there, it is not apparent to me at present that the injured party will have any right of redress.
This, again, is something we want to watch in case we unwittingly create a Frankenstein. This problem may tend to get more rather than less acute. It is possible that, with the increase in the size of aircraft, what is called the balanced field length will increase. This is particularly so as we move towards a generation of very large aircraft which have only two engines, and it is in the interests of safety that there should be a very long clearway for the engine out condition after V 1.
Since this could materially affect the property rights of people, rich and poor, living in an increasingly large area surrounding an airport, I ask the Minister to consider the implications carefully before Committee.
With these observations I welcome the Bill in general because, from my limited knowledge of the international air law, it is obvious that it is desperately short of precedents. Therefore, this is an area in which legislation is actually beneficial to more parties than are immediately apparent. There is so little case law that operators or manufacturers or


private individuals who endeavour to get an authoritative legal opinion can generally find as many conflicting opinions as there are practitioners in that branch of the law. That is an additional reason for my welcome of this codification, to some extent, of the existing law, and further definition in an area where the rights of different interested parties conflict.

11.38 a.m.

Mr. John Ryan: I, too, ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to address himself to Clause 9 and the powers he is giving to the aerodrome authorities to confiscate assets of airlines using these aerodromes. This is a most backward and retrograde method of dealing with problems of payment. I believe that there is increasing hostility to the concept of Customs officials having the right automatically to seize contraband going in or out of the country and removing from the courts the discretion as to what is the appropriate penalty for people who break the law in these matters. One hopes that common sense will be used in the conduct of these transactions. Of course, the example given by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) of the seizure of a Concorde was grotesque, but nevertheless, in terms of Clause 9, the Bill gives the aerodrome authority the right to do just that. It seems a quite disproportionate possibility. There is a clear difference between the replacement costs of these assets and possibly the market costs at any point of time. This does seem a backward way of raising money. Discretion should be left to the courts as to how any default should be recovered.

11.40 a.m.

Mr. Mallalieu: A number of extremely interesting points—

The Chairman: I am sure that the Minister of State has overlooked the fact, that, in this Committee, we are dealing with the Second Reading of a Bill, so that an hon. Member who wishes to speak a second time must ask leave of the Committee to do so. I assume that that is granted.

Mr. Mallalieu: I apologise, Sir Barnett. Perhaps, by leave of the Committee, I may reply briefly to some of the

extremely interesting points which have been raised.
I must say that I see the possibility of real substance in what has been said about Clause 9 by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Ryan) and by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) in relation to a forced sale at a very low price. Clearly, we must look at this again and see whether we can reach a form of words which will cover the point adequately.
I agree also with the hon. Member for Tiverton about the need for publicity of bylaws—do not let these things be written in small print with the result that people find themselves in trouble because they did not know what had happened. We must certainly find a way of ensuring that these bylaws are properly publicised.
I was somewhat alarmed to hear the reference by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) to a tree at Southend which we have not enough powers to lop. We must look at that. However, I think that the powers are adequate to safeguard safety. If they are not, and the hon. Gentleman has any particular suggestions to make, I will consider them. But the danger in this type of power is that it might be used excessively and might do tyrannical harm to individuals on occasions, and this is obviously something we want to avoid. But I think that the balance on the whole is reasonable and right.
Hon. Members have referred to the totally unlawful detention of a British aircraft by the Algerian Government. I regret to say that signing the Convention would not have made any difference in that case, since the Algerian Government have given us no reason for the detention of the plane. It seems to us to be in breach of both national and international law and we shall have to take what steps through legal processes we can to see that the law is obeyed. But I repeat that the Convention would not make any difference.

Mr. Hastings: There seems to be a grave lack in international law if there is no point by which we can bring the Algerian Government to book on this issue. I accept that nothing can be done in the Bill, but it is nevertheless a matter to which the Board of Trade should pay attention in future.

Mr. Mallalieu: I am no lawyer, but I presume that legal processes exist. I also assume that they will be long processes. I imagine that one could bring Algeria before the International Court. I do not know, but I will look at the matter.

Mr. Onslow: I wonder whether, on this point—

The Chairman: I am not sure that this matter comes within the purview of the Bill. If the hon. Member pursues this specific point about Algeria, he will be out of order.

Mr. Mallalieu: I am afraid that, specifically, the matter does not come within the Bill, Sir Barnett.

The Chairman: Perhaps I ought not to have allowed it to be raised before.

Mr. Onslow: It has had a good run.

Mr. Mallalieu: A point was raised in relation to Clause 14 about the consent of the State of registry being asked before we exercise safety controls. That does not apply when the foreign aircraft is in this country. It is only extra-national circumstances in which we could not, without permission, exercise safety control over it, for it would be outside the country.
Various hon. Members have spoken about the antiquity of the laws we are tying these matters to, but the fact that a law is old does not necessarily mean that it is bad. It so happens that the only precedents for doing for aircraft what we are hoping to do are rather ancient and have a relation to shipping, but in the Orders we shall submit to the House we shall ensure that we have all the necessary changes and adaptations of

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Janner, Sir B. (Chairman)
Mallalieu, Mr. J. P. W.


Atkins, Mr. Humphrey
Maxwell-Hyslop, Mr.


Carter-Jones, Mr.
Murray, Mr.


Fitch, Mr.
Onslow, Mr.


Hastings, Mr.
Ridsdale, Mr.


Jackson, Mr. Colin
Ryan, Mr.


Jones, Mr. Dan
Spriggs, Mr.


Lane, Mr.

these old Measures and that we bring them up to date.

There has also been some complaint about a phrase that we would have consultation with industry. This arose about Clause 11. We have been having prolonged consultations with industry, especially with the S.B.A.C. As soon as the Bill is passed, we shall go into much more detailed consultation in order to get things right in the Orders.

The majority of the points raised are useful, and we shall consider them very carefully before the Committee stage. In the main, however, they are Committee points, and I shall not deal with them now. In general, I think that the feeling of the Committee is that this is a reasonably good Bill, and I am grateful for the reception that it has been given.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Civil Aviation Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

Mr. Mallalieu: Following the custom under the old procedure, and which I hope is still a courtesy which can be extended under the new procedure, I should like to thank you, Sir Barnett, for the way in which you have chaired our deliberations.

Mr. Onslow: May I add the thanks of those on this side of the Committee?

The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. I am grateful to you for your help.

Committee rose at fourteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.